Had this one the other night.

Player gets a long pass on a clean breakaway. Catches ball at full stride and begins to dribble near the end line. Realizing he is about to go out of bounds, forces the last dribble back in towards the court. Ball is now bouncing in bounds but nobody is around yet, so the player comes back into the court (both feet in bounds) and continues the dribble.

I had no call, and player goes into score uncontested layup. Excitment from other team.

Closest situation in the book is 7-1.1 AR1 (NCAA). I am wondering more about continuing the dribble?

Thanks

When the player forced the last dribble back toward the court, it bacame an interrupted dribble.

As long as the player didn't grab the ball (end the dribble) upon retunring to the court, it was a legal play.

How can it be an interrupted dribble when the player "forces" it back to the playing court? The ball did not deflect off him or momentarily get away.

Mregor

Why isn't this consider the same as stepping on the OOB line while dribbling whether or not your hand is in contact with the ball at the time you actually step on the OOB line?

If the player's momentum carries him off the court so that he can't immediately dribble the ball, then the play should be ruled as an "interrupted dribble". Note that this is a judgement call on the official's part. See R4-15-5 where it says that there is NO player control during an interrupted dribble. "No" is the key word.

Because it is an "interrupted" dribble with NO player control, as per the definition in R4-15-5. During a regular dribble, you do have player control.

I'm not arguing the point about no PC during an interrupted dribble. I'm not even arguing that it should be a violation. What I am saying is that I don't think it is an interrupted dribble. Rule 4-15-5 says: "An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble."

Where does it say that a player who intentionally bats the ball in a certain direction constitues an interrupted dribble? I think Casebook 7.1.1 situation D sums it up

Mregor

I'm not arguing the point about no PC during an interrupted dribble. I'm not even arguing that it should be a violation. What I am saying is that I don't think it is an interrupted dribble. Rule 4-15-5 says: "An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble."

Where does it say that a player who intentionally bats the ball in a certain direction constitues an interrupted dribble? I think Casebook 7.1.1 situation D sums it up

[/B][/QUOTE]It is an interrupted dribble because the original post in this thread says so!! The post says that the player <b>was</b> dribbling, went out of bounds and left the ball in bounds, and then came back in bounds and resumed dribbling. Note that this post says nothing about the dribbler grabbing the ball, or ending the dribble at any time before resuming his original dribble. Also, there's <b>no</b> pass involved, which is why 7.1.1D isn't relevant at all- unless you wanna relate it to the (b) part,which happens to be legal because a dribble has already been started.

It is an interrupted dribble because the original post in this thread says so!! The post says that the player <b>was</b> dribbling, went out of bounds and left the ball in bounds, and then came back in bounds and resumed dribbling. Note that this post says nothing about the dribbler grabbing the ball, or ending the dribble at any time before resuming his original dribble. Also, there's <b>no</b> pass involved, which is why 7.1.1D isn't relevant at all- unless you wanna relate it to the (b) part,which happens to be legal because a dribble has already been started. [/B][/QUOTE]

7.1.1 Sit D, play b is exactly what I was referring to. A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catched the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball. Ruling: Legal...the toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes the start of a dribble...

I agree its not the exact situation, however, it covers what I think is pertinent. What's the difference if it is the start of a dribble or continuation of a dribble? A dribble is a dribble until it ends is it not? I still disagree that it is an interrupted dribble. It does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble. The player directed the ball to go a certain way. That is not an interrupted dribble. I would have a no call, but I think you could make a case for him also being OOB once he came in and continued his dribble much like SamIAm said.

Mregor

A dribble is a dribble until it ends is it not? I still disagree that it is an interrupted dribble. It does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble. The player directed the ball to go a certain way. That is not an interrupted dribble.

[/B][/QUOTE]The player dribbled. The player was then unable to continue that dribble because he was legally off the court. The player then came back in and legally continued that dribble- because he had never ended his original dribble. The dribbler lost player control while he was off the court, but regained player control when he commenced to dribble again.

Imo, that fits the definition above perfectly.I don't know what else you could possibly call it but an interrupted dribble.

It momentarily got away from him.
 

The fact that he anticipated that doesn't mean that he chose to let it get away. It means he was smart.

Casebook 7.1.1 (B) hinges part of the legal/illegal issue to the player having control of the ball or not before going OOB. It indicates it is legal because the player did not leave the court voluntarily and the player did not have control of the ball before leaving the court. In the posted sitch the player dribble one or more times, left the playing court, then returned to continue dribbling the ball.

I see nothing in the post that fits the definition of an interrupted dribble.

I see no reason not to call an OOB violation. The only difference to the (I can't locate the rule) violation of stepping out of bounds while dribbling is the direct angle in this sitch versus the player dribbling along the sideline and stepping OOB while not in contact with the ball.

Nope,the difference from this case to the case where a player steps OOB while dribbling is "player control". And it's a BIG difference! In this particular case,the player legally went OOB without having player control of the ball. That is why he can legally return in-bounds and continue his dribble. In the other case, the player stepped on the line when he did have player control of the ball during his dribble, and that's exactly why there is a violation called.

If you called a violation in the first case,where the player went OOB without player control and then legally returned to dribble the ball again, you would be completely wrong.

When the player swatted the ball back towards the court, he gave up control, and anyone who happens to be in the vicinity can get it easily. He gives up control prior to going out of bounds. In the case of the dribbler on the sideline, he gives up control after stepping on the line; which is I think the key difference.

Nope, the dribbler doesn't give up player control when he steps on the line. The player maintained player control by immediately continuing his dribble after he stepped on the line. That's why the OOB violation is now called.

The key difference in the 2 plays is NO player control in the first case versus no loss of player control in the second case.