|
|||
Quote:
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? |
|
|||
Quote:
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? [/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!)
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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? [/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. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]I was waiting for that answer too from Mark. Get the feeling that you're being ignored? |
|
|||
Quote:
Yes, and I wonder why? |
|
|||
Quote:
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! |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Re: Re: Rolling is dribbling
Quote:
I know. Ain't it amazin'. MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio |
|
|||
Re: Re: But.....
Quote:
...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? Quote:
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
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]
__________________
"The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook."?William James |
|
||||
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."
|
Bookmarks |
|
|