A question came up about a play.

A1 rolls the ball on the floor and recovers the ball.

Does this fit the definition of a dribble? If not, what is it? Can it be repeated?

I am interested in your rulings and why.

Just a guess...
 

Sounds like a travel. It doesn't seem to fall under the definition of a dribble, so when the pivot has been picked up, then traveling. Of course if the roll was accidental, it could be considered a fumble and could be picked up.


Interesting question. Look forward to other answers.

Don't have my rule book with me, but I'm calling it a dribble. Therefore, it may not be repeated, unless it is never accompanied by a motion or grab that would end the dribble.

Re: Just a guess...
 

Last time we talked about rolling, we decided it wasn't a violation. Nothing in the book addresses it either way. I always let it go, myself. If I can't tell the coach why it's illegal, I'm not going to call it!

Woo-hoo!! I found it!! Here's a link to a previous discussion. http://www.officialforum.com/thread/5387



[Edited by rainmaker on May 4th, 2004 at 02:37 PM]

4-15 ART.3 The dribble may be started by PUSHING,THROWING, or batting the ball to the floor.

I'd be comfortable with combining rolling with either pushing or throwing.

Yeah but it says *TO the floor*, not *ALONG the floor*.

Along is all in the eye of the bholder - its just a diffferent angle at which the ball contacts the floor.

I am inclined to think this is not a violation when first done, provided the dribble was started legally (i.e., pivot was not lifted), it clearly cannot be done by the inbounder (can't be first to touch), and it can only be done once if the player picks up the ball - doing it again would be double dribble. It could arguably be done more than once if the player continues rolling the ball with one hand. I would argue this with no real conviction, but mainly because any smart defense could take advantage of this and steal the ball or force a pick up (ending the "dribble"). Therefore, this "tactic" gains no advantage beyond that of the normal dribble - it actually is not as advantageous as a normal dribble.

It's an And 1 move, and like 99% of their ball handling it is or will lead to an illegal dribble. LOL

blindzebra
I see your lol, but do you really think this is illegal when first done (i.e., the first roll followed by a pickup and no dribble or second roll)? I think it may easily lead to a violation, but is not one on face value.

Coach, that is why I said, "It is or will lead to an illegal dribble."

As a coach you'd probably welcome an official nipping it in the bud when a kid started their Hot Sauce impression.

No, I don't think that it is a violation in and of itself, it is the start of a dribble.

I don't think it fits the definition of dribble at all. "A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushed the ball to the floor once or several times."

I disagree with Hawks' Coach that "to the floor" and "along the floor" are different only by the angle.

I would think a small player could learn to roll the ball quite effectively as a legal move, and I'm a little surprised it hasn't become more of an issue.

There is nothing in the rule book that prohibits a player rolling a ball. Rolling the ball does <b>not</b> meet the definition of a dribble. The player is <b>not</b> batting or pushing the ball <b>to</b> the floor once or several times, as per the definition of a dribble in NFHS R4-15-1. Legal play- no rule against it, and the existing rules do not cover it.

Re: Re: Just a guess...
 

And it only took you 3 years and 10 months to figure out how to do it! :D

FIBA rule 34.1.1 includes 'rolls' as one of the denifition of dribbling

So, I guess that puts Hawk's coach and me ahead of the curve when it comes to b-ball in the states.

Yeah, sure, you'll be at the top of the class when...errr...if fiba rules are adopted in the US.

Until then... :shrug:

Assuming that the action was voluntary (i.e., not a fumble), A1 action was not the start of a dribble. But, it was the start of a pass.


A dribble is defined by:

NFHS R4-S15-A1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionallhy strikes the ball with the hand(s) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

NFHS R4-S15-A2: During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s).

NFHS R4-S15-A3: The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor.


A pass is defined by:

NFHS R4-S31: PASS: A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats, or rolls the ball to another player.


Moving on to the definition of traveling:

NFHS R4-S43-A3a: After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot: The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or a try for goal.


Unfortunately, there are not Casebook Plays that apply specifically to this play.


As one can see, this is the start of a pass, and not the start of a dribble. But the question remains, and that is: Did A1 commit a traveling violation when he/she touched the ball after releasing the ball for the pass?

I have more that I would like to add to this post, but it is late and I am going to go to bed. So I will post this response in an effort to give some information that will move the thread along.

Good night everybody.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on May 4th, 2004 at 11:59 PM]

Mark,

Since A1 may retrieve a pass to a teammate as long as they have not already dribbled, you have a precedent of a pass that becomes a dribble, why would this be any different?

Geeze, I just hate when he does that!!!

Now I won't be able to sleep tonight wondering how Mark will rule on this play.

...maybe I'll just go & read some of his earlier posts, that oughta at least get me drowsey...

MTD,
The rolling of the ball may not meet the definition of a pass in this case. Look again at the def you posted:


It specifically states that the movement of the ball must be "to another player." If this rolling is not, then we don't have either a dribble or a pass here.

Re: Re: Re: Just a guess...
 

Yea, my hero is Mr. Ludd.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess...
 

:D

Me too!

Rulebook application and correctness aside, this is one of those plays that happens once in a almost never, which makes it one that whatever you call or don't call, as long as you do so with conviction, no one will question it very much.

But.....
 

just because something starts out to be one thing, it can turn out to be something else. If a pass from outside the arc goes in the basket, it is no longer a pass, it is a three point field goal. If you throw a pass and then run and catch it yourself, it is no longer a pass but a dribble, if you had one, or a travel, if you did not.

Re: But.....
 

This is not at all true.

A pass that goes in from outside the arc is NOT a try. It is simply counted as three points. There are several ways points can be scored in the absence of a try. This is one of them.

Also, the ball that is thrown and caught by the same player never was a pass. It was a dribble all along, it just takes until the ball is again touched to make the determination. A pass has to be to another player. If it doesn't go to another player, it's not a pass.

Now, to the original case...

At first I tought that the original case couldn't be a travel since, in all but one case (that I could remember), a travel occurs while holding the ball. The one case is when a player throws the ball into the air, moves the pivot foot, and catches the ball before it hits the floor (not talking about a shot or a ball that is thrown off the offensive backboard).

Then I tought it should either be a dribble or an illegal dribble. If it doesn't fit the definition of a legal dribble, it's an illegal dribble. A player who is holding the ball could potentially start a dribble by pushing it to the floor in such a way that their hand continues to make contact with the ball all the way to the floor and back up. It would be difficult and not particularly useful, but it could be done and it would be legal. They could also push it to the floor and keep the hand on top of it in such a way as to prevent it from bouncing back up. Again, not too useful but legal and not even a dribble. (case on a player touching the ball to the floor without letting it go).

Then, I remembered one more case that may help...

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.

In summary, the ball is moved around the floor in 3 ways: passing, dribbling, and shooting. To move with control of the ball, a player has to dribble. This is not a dribble. Traveling.

Camron,
Great post and I agree completely. BTW the casebook play for the travel is 4.43.5 Sit B in the Ruling.

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.

In summary, the ball is moved around the floor in 3 ways: passing, dribbling, and shooting. To move with control of the ball, a player has to dribble. This is not a dribble. Traveling.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Camron,
Great post and I agree completely. BTW the casebook play for the travel is 4.43.5 Sit B in the Ruling.

[/B][/QUOTE]The above is not applicable in any way, shape or form for one simple reason.In Camron's case, you have travelling when the player gained CONTROL of the ball by picking it up. In the case book play cited, the player also had CONTROL of the ball while on the floor. Control of the ball is defined as holding or dribbling the ball. If you're PUSHING the ball along the floor, you do NOT meet the rule book definitions of either holding or dribbling the ball. You just plain and simple do NOT have control of the ball, so you can't be called for travelling. It's no different than fumbling the ball in the air the length of the court. May look bad, but it's legal.

There is nothing anywhere in the rule book that says that you can travel without having control of the ball. Casebook play 4.43SitA nicely points that out.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 5th, 2004 at 07:45 AM]

Gentlemen
 

I have very much enjoyed the discussion so far and would add some points.

First, tossing the ball in the air, taking steps, and then catching the ball before it hits the floor is referred to as an illegal dribble in the casebook 4.15.4.E (b).

You say a player has control while batting the ball to the floor while dibbling. I agree.

If the dribbler allows the ball to bounce more than once, is it now an interrupted dribble? or is he still in control? How many bounces must there be before PC is lost? Can you lose PC on the initial bounce of the start of the dribble? or do you have to bounce it once to prove a dribble was started?

I hope we can agree that the ball can bounce more than once between touches by the dribbler.

Maybe I am wrong for doing this, but to me the basic definition of the legal dribble for a player who has PC is purposely releasing the ball (though batting, throwing, etc.), ball touches the floor, you direct the ball with a bat (or not), and the dribble ends when the ball comes to rest in one or both of the hands of the dribbler. This all assumes no defensive interference and the ball stays in bounds.

Does rolling the ball fit this criteria? Yes - except the only place where the board does not have consensus is in the manner of release. Just because the ball starts near or at the floor when the release is done, some argue that it does not fit the definition of the start of the dribble. Is there a difference if the initial push was done like a little kid trying to roll a bowling ball or if the release was 1 mm off the floor? They can look silimar, but does it make a difference for the purposes of starting a dribble? Certainly the ball rolling across the floor is bouncing - although the bounces are extremely small. But in theory, A1 could begin batting the ball enough that is would begin to look like a more conventional dribble.

Personally, I think a dribble has started.

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.

Rolling is dribbling
 

For some historical perspective, before dribbling was invented, back in the days of peach baskets and center jumps after every basket, rolling the ball was the first means used by players trying to get around the original rules restriction that a player could only pass or shoot the ball. Once dribbling was allowed in 1910, rolling the ball became rare. However, IMHO, it fits all the definitions of dribbling and should be officiated accordingly.

Wrong attribution above, Mark. Nevada Ref cited that case book play, not me. I said that that casebook play <b>wasn't</b> 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.

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.

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.

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.

It IS a dribble!
 

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.

Re: It IS a dribble!
 

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?

Re: Re: It IS a dribble!
 

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

Re: Re: It IS a dribble!
 

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.

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.

Re: Re: Re: It IS a dribble!
 

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.

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.

Re: Re: Re: It IS 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.

Re: Rolling is dribbling
 

Wow.

MTD's record has been broken . . . :p

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."

And like several other plays that we've gone on and on page after page about, most of us will never see this in the next 5 years.

I think that's often why these are the longest, and - IMO - many times the best, discussions.

Speaking of once every 5 years type plays, the one & only time I saw a BI off a free throw I kicked it by signalling 2 points instead of 1 - force of habit I guess. Half of the coaches participating in the game quietly smiled, half of them weren't so quiet.

Moral of the story: gotta be ready for anything.

So what did we decide? It's a dribble...but it's not, it's a pass...but it wasn't to another player, so it's a dribble...but it's not, so it is traveling...but there is no player control, so it can't be that...it's, never mind.

Tastes great...less filling...not a dribble.

Agreeing with Juulie's summary of 'not seeing in the next 5 years' classification, I like this position of Snaqwells--and should I see the play sitch in the next 5 years that is how I intend to deal with it.

I think it's each man (woman, Chuck) to his (her, its) own. :p

At least you called something - I was so shocked about the BI that I didn't award the points, call the T, or signal the lane violation.

Which, as of last year is not a T. Only GT on a FT is a T.

Re: Re: Re: But.....
 

Fair enough...you didn't say try. However, if it goes into the basket, it is a goal and never was a pass. It's just a thrown ball.

Like most rules, intent doesn't matter. Most times, a player doesn't intend to foul. Should we not call the foul simply becasue a player didn't intend to make contact.

The only thing we have available, in most cases, is action. What actually occured? Doesn't matter how it happened. This is consistent with the thrown ball that goes in the basket. The intent doesn't matter, only the fact that it went in.

Sometimes, we have to delay a decision in order to determine.
Is it is a pass or dribble? Depends on who touches it next.

Is it a carry or the end of the dribble? Must wait to see if the dribble again.

Is it a travel or not when the pivot foot is lifted? Have to wait to see if the player passes, shoots, or dribbles.

Happened 2 seasons ago . . .