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. [/B][/QUOTE]I agree that you can start a dribble that way. By rule however, you can't continue that dribble by then rolling the ball though. To dribble,by definition,you have to push or bat the ball TO the floor EACH individual time(or dribble). That dribbling action is completely different than pushing the ball ALONG the floor.

Hmmmmm. Maybe the "cone of verticality" also is involved with dribbling the ball too. And the "cone of horizontality" refers to pushing the ball. Make sense now? :D

I agree that you can start a dribble that way. By rule however, you can't continue that dribble by then rolling the ball though. To dribble,by definition,you have to push or bat the ball TO the floor EACH individual time(or dribble). That dribbling action is completely different than pushing the ball ALONG the floor.

Hmmmmm. Maybe the "cone of verticality" also is involved with dribbling the ball too. And the "cone of horizontality" refers to pushing the ball. Make sense now? :D [/B][/QUOTE]

OK, we're gonna try this one more time...

Don't tell me we're gonna discuss THAT again??!

(now you say "Yes, we're gonna discuss that again"...go ahead, say it!)

I don't think that I will EVER forget the "cone of verticality". Unfortunately.

New wrench in this thread.... ;)


Consider case where A1, while rebounding, tips/bats the ball one or more times in an attempt to gain control. It is considered legal since the player does not have control. So, a ball that is on the floor that is being batted along seems very much like this case. The player is neither holding or dribbling the ball.

I agree that you can start a dribble that way. By rule however, you can't continue that dribble by then rolling the ball though. To dribble,by definition,you have to push or bat the ball TO the floor EACH individual time(or dribble). That dribbling action is completely different than pushing the ball ALONG the floor.

Hmmmmm. Maybe the "cone of verticality" also is involved with dribbling the ball too. And the "cone of horizontality" refers to pushing the ball. Make sense now? :D [/B][/QUOTE]

That is actually what I have been saying all along it starts the dribble, then you'd have an interrupted dribble, it is what happens next that will or won't be a violation.

As for the cone, I never did get an answer about my play where I flipped the situation.

Ah, yes. Brings back fond memories of Slider/Zimp, and a 3-week thread. :D

As for the cone, I never did get an answer about my play where I flipped the situation.

[/B][/QUOTE]I was waiting for that answer too from Mark. Get the feeling that you're being ignored?

I was waiting for that answer too from Mark. Get the feeling that you're being ignored? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, and I wonder why?

Actually, this is where I was headed with the last few posts. I don't see any advantage that seems inconsistent with the rules (such as a player stepping on the bleachers 3 feet behind the spot throwin), so I can't see using the EP rule to call a violation.
If I see enough "control" I'll consider it the start of a dribble, if not, it's a fumble and he hasn't used up a dribble.

I suppose it doesn't matter much until one of the touches to control the direction is a two-handed touch. If it is a dribble (which I'm not saying it is), pushing it along the floor would be a legal continuation of the dribble (which I'm not saying it is), as long as only one hand is used.

And since the likelihood of anyone using rolling as a strategy is low, and the two-handed touch is even less likely, being so awkward, this argu.. I mean, discussion, is moot.

That sentence ought to keep the grammarians busy for a while!

Who you calling a grammarian? I'm not that old!!! :)

Re: Re: Rolling is dribbling
 

I know. Ain't it amazin'.

MTD, Sr.

Re: Re: But.....
 

Never said it was a try, I said it was a field goal.5-2-1
...thrown ball....by a player....located behind (the 3point
line) counts three points. Is this not a field goal, even though it was intended as a pass?

The guy was throwing it to another player, but he wasn't looking, so the first player retrieved it himself. So, as you say, we must wait for the second touch to make a determination and, possibly, a call. My point was that this player's original intention was to make a pass.

Now having said all this, one question is what this player in the situation at hand intends when he rolls the ball on the floor. But, as proven by the above examples, his original intent is not really important but the question is the legality of the second touch after rolling the ball. I
believe that I personally would treat this the same as if the player had thrown a pass and retrieved it himself.

Consistent interpretation?
 

Lots of good points here and picking apart of the rules. But, until the FED and NCAA come out with some specific case regarding a roll, consistent interpretations need to be applied for your districts, associations, etc., so that your league is on the same page.
My proposal to my associations will be a travel. I do not agree with the dribble viewpoint, as I think we all know by rule and experience, what a dribble is intended to be. My interpretation is that the player rolling the ball is in control of the ball, although not defined by rule. If they are controlling the action of the ball, they are in control of the ball. If the player has the ball and is rolling it from hand to hand without moving his/her feet, or pivot foot; I have nothing. When he/she lifts their pivot foot, they need to get rid of the ball. Even if that means "rolling" it to another player.
Case plays of the future may prove otherwise, but this is how I intepret it.

[Edited by N_Stripes on May 6th, 2004 at 09:19 AM]

I guess until I see a direct prohibition of something, I let it go. I'd rather defend a no-call with "It's not prohibited" than defend a violation call with, "I think it should be illegal and I can stretch a couple of rules to prove it."