Why or Why not?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Good morning everybody.


Camron Rust (May 05/02:42amEDT), 2004:

"Player sitting on the floor while holding the ball. Player puts the ball on the floor, stands up, then picks up the ball. Case book says traveling. With this, there is precedent that rules on moving after putting the ball on the floor in a way that is not a dribble. It is a travel."


Jurassic Referee (May 05/07:38amEDT), 2004:

"NFHS Casebook Play 4.43.5 Situation B, RULING."


I think that this is the closest appropriate play that can be applied to the original play, and I would rule that A1 had committed a traveling violation. I think that is a good play to be sent to the NFHS, NCAA, and FIBA for a ruling.

MTD, Sr.

Wrong attribution above, Mark. Nevada Ref cited that case book play, not me. I said that that casebook play wasn't applicable because of the fact that there is player control established in the case book play, but there is NO player control ever while you are pushing a ball. That's why I cited a different case book-4-43-SitA- as being more appropriate. Iow, I DON"T agree with you at all that it is a travel. It is a basketball fundamental that it is impossible to travel without having player control of the ball.

[Adam]

From 'The Intent and Purpose of the Rules'

"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

In the absence of a clear prohibition of rolling the ball as the original play describes, and since the practical result of the play is a dribble (player moves while ball is on the floor), I'm treating it like a legal dribble. There is no unfair advantage gained by the roll, any more than a really low bounce pass or dribble.

No call from me on this. Call the obvious, and this ain't obvious.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf
However, IMHO, it fits all the definitions of dribbling and should be officiated accordingly.

Unfortunately, there is no current rule that will support you. The definition of a dribble says that a player IN CONTROL pushes or bats the ball TO the floor-rule 4-15-1. There is NO player control involved while you're pushing a ball ALONG the floor.

[SamIAm]

NCAA Rule 2 section 3 - Elastic Power(EP). I can call it a travel or double dribble and be correct. But I am not saying you have to call it either.
IMO - If the rolling is accomplished by using two hands after the initial release I would call double dribble.
If the ball is picked up after the initial roll, the palyer has lost his dribble.

[Adam]

Originally posted by SamIAm
NCAA Rule 2 section 3 - Elastic Power(EP). I can call it a travel or double dribble and be correct. But I am not saying you have to call it either.
IMO - If the rolling is accomplished by using two hands after the initial release I would call double dribble.
If the ball is picked up after the initial roll, the palyer has lost his dribble.

You could call it over-the-back with that rule if you wanted to. Or, you could call an illegal teapot infraction, and use the one-person blarge signal. Doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[blindzebra]

You are getting hung up on the literal.

If you push, strike, or bat a ball to the floor what happens? The hand releases the ball and the ball touches the floor. What happens when you roll the ball? The hand releases the ball and the ball touches the floor.

This ain't rocket science.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra
You are getting hung up on the literal.

If you push, strike, or bat a ball to the floor what happens? The hand releases the ball and the ball touches the floor. What happens when you roll the ball? The hand releases the ball and the ball touches the floor.

This ain't rocket science.

Speaking of rocket science...

What if the ball just happens to be ON the floor as the player pushes it?

You have a dribble now?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Speaking of rocket science...

What if the ball just happens to be ON the floor as the player pushes it?

You have a dribble now?

I guess you have never seen a player strike a ball that was on the floor to begin a dribble?

[Ref in PA]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Speaking of rocket science...

What if the ball just happens to be ON the floor as the player pushes it?

You have a dribble now?

Speaking of rocket science ... that ball on the floor isn't really at rest on the floor but because of kenetic energy is actually minutely bouncing- more so when rolling.

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately, there is no current rule that will support you. The definition of a dribble says that a player IN CONTROL pushes or bats the ball TO the floor-rule 4-15-1. There is NO player control involved while you're pushing a ball ALONG the floor.

Why is there NO player control? Player control includes when the player is dribbling. To say that he is not dribbling because he doesn't have control is circular logic. There is player control because the player is dribbling. There is no player control because the player is not dribbling. This is the point of the whole argument.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Ref in PA

Speaking of rocket science ... that ball on the floor isn't really at rest on the floor but because of kenetic energy is actually minutely bouncing- more so when rolling.

Well let's see...

If the ball is not moving on the floor it is at rest and has no kinetic energy.

If the ball is moving on the floor it has kinetic energy.

Neither of which means anything in this discussion.

I think BZ's original point was if A1 is HOLDING the ball then the ball somehow makes it TO the floor to initiate the roll. Good point.

My point is if the ball is on the floor - moving or standing still - when A1 rolls it he does not move the ball TO the floor. Because it's already there.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

Why is there NO player control? Player control includes when the player is dribbling. To say that he is not dribbling because he doesn't have control is circular logic. There is player control because the player is dribbling. There is no player control because the player is not dribbling. This is the point of the whole argument.

Jim, the definition of "dribbling" says that you haveta push the ball TO the floor. In this case, the ball is ALREADY on the floor when you push it ALONG the floor. Circular logic isn't involved at all here because a dribble isn't ever involved, by rule or definition. They're two completely different situations here.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Jim, the definition of "dribbling" says that you haveta push the ball TO the floor. In this case, the ball is ALREADY on the floor when you push it ALONG the floor. Circular logic isn't involved at all here because a dribble isn't ever involved, by rule or definition. They're two completely different situations here.

JR, but what about a player holding the ball who releases it to the floor with an underhanded push and rolls it, that does meet the definition of starting a dribble IMO.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

I guess you have never seen a player strike a ball that was on the floor to begin a dribble?

I guess I don't see what this has to do with a player *rolling* a ball on the floor either.

As in the original play.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jimgolf
Once dribbling was allowed in 1910

Wow.

MTD's record has been broken . . .