The play in question is NOT an interrupted dribble, and I don't know how to make that any clearer.

If you caused the ball to go past the defender it did NOT get away from you.
[/B][/QUOTE]BZ, it doesn't really matter if you caused the ball to go past the defender or not. If you WERE dribbling but you are NOW physically unable to immediately continue to dribble, even if you wanted to, then the ball HAS gotten away from you. That's simply a physical fact. You've lost player control because you're no longer able to dribble, and it's regarded as an interrupted dribble. Those are the criteria that the FED cited when they first introduced the concept of interrupted dribbles into the rule book about 20 years ago- i.e. the dribble hasn't ended, but the player dribbling lost player control for some/any reason and was physically unable to continue dribbling, even if he wanted to, but he still had the legal right to continue dribbling when he re-gained player control.

It's a moot point anyway in this particular argument, isn't it, according to eventnyc's description of what happened? The main point was what, if anything, should be called on the dribbler for going OOB around the defender.

I'd pull out the pertinent language on interrupted dribbles from one of my 20-year old rulebooks, but unfortunately they're kept in one of my briefcases, and I keep those stored in a bomb-proof vault in a hidden cave somewhere deep in the Sierra Madre mountains. I could tell you exactly where, but then I'd have to kill you. [/B][/QUOTE]

The thing is the last time this situation came up, I got out on the court with my partner and we tried it. I'm not a great dribbler, but I was able to push the ball past the defender and run around him during one bounce.

It goes back to what i said earlier, if A1 pushes the ball ahead and takes several steps to dribble again is that an interrupted dribble. BBREF of course said steps don't matter, and refused to follow logic. Since player control is lost by deflection off the dribbler or the ball getting away,i.e. not going where the dribbler WANTED it to go you have an interrupted dribble.

Every dribble gets away from the dribbler after it leaves their hand, it becomes an interrupted dribble when it STAYS away. Their is no difference between pushing the ball ahead beyond a normal dribble and pushing it past a defender.

Are you serious, Mark? Are you really advocating that an official should judge whether a play should be called a violation or a technical foul based on whether the official THOUGHT that the play occurred <b>spontaneously</b> or not? Forget about the rules and call it according to what you <b>think</b> the player's intent was? Do you teach that concept in your training classes too?

PS- I thought Juulie's reply was a little grumpy too. Tsk, tsk, tsk. :D [/B][/QUOTE]


Not completely. If I have said it once I have said it 1,000 times some people are making this play way too difficult. It is a play that you have to see to make the call. No amount of discussion as to whether it should be a violation or a technical foul made a difference. It is a play that one has to see in person and make a decision right then and there.

The play being discussed in this thread can best be described as a "you'll know it when you see it" type of play. I, also, still believe, that the vast majority of the time, this play wiii be a violation rather than a technical foul.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Sep 17th, 2004 at 04:13 PM]

Agree that most of the time it will probably be a violation call, unless the players action going OOB showed a clear attempt to gain an advantage. Like Mark said, you'll know it when you see it.

I've only had it happen once - 8th grade boys game. A1 is bringing the ball up court along the sideline & team B sets up to trap at half court. Without picking up his dribble, A1 bounces the ball between & past the defenders, then runs around one of them and grabs the ball, going OOB in the process. I whistle A1 for the "T", then coach A explodes off the bench screaming "what kind of a Bxxx Sxxx call is that" earning himself a seat in the parking lot, as he had already been rung up earlier for dropping an "F" bomb.

From NFHS site description of differences between NFHS and NCAA: "Player out of bounds - first to touch the ball – gaining advantage - Technical Foul".

I stand corrected. Even though I'm sitting. Thanks for playing devil's advocate, Jurassic.

It shouldn't be "first to touch the ball" should it? It's not illegal to be the first to touch the ball after being out of bounds as long as you're not touching out of bounds when you touch the ball.

This is not an OOB violation. The violation is for stepping OOB on purpose & then being the first player to touch the ball after you come back in. Used to be a T.

Whether it is or is not, this is the verbiage from NFHS. It says HS Technical, NCAA Violation.

http://www.nfhs.org/staticcontent/pd...nces_04-05.pdf

Jim, I'm not arguing your chart.

All I'm saying (to Juulie) is that the violation is not an OOB violation, so the usual OOB stuff - like you can be first to touch after going OOB after returning inbounds - does not apply.

Yea, I got that. I'm objecting to the wording. It's another case where a poorly worded sentence gives the wrong impression to the "great unwashed."

Editted to add: I just looked at the above linked page, and I'm appalled. How incredibly confusing! Nothing about that it's referring to the "leaving the court for unauthorized reasons" situation. It just says, "oob - first to touch the ball - gain advantage/ technical foul" Why would anyone think it meant anything other than "first to touch after being out of bounds."? In fact, where is there any reference to leaving the court for unauthorized reasons? How could we possibly convince anyone else that this is what it refers to? Do we need another letter to Mary Struckhoff?

[Edited by rainmaker on Sep 18th, 2004 at 01:35 PM]

You do not understand the definition of an interrupted dribble. :(

I'll say it again. It's neither intentional, accidental, or purposeful. It's simply whem the ball gets away from the dribbler, FOR WHATEVER REASON!!!!! I defy you to post a rule or case play that is contrary to those two statements.

BTW, emphasis mine. :D

I think that has gotten off-track with its discussion of interrupted dribbles. I am not going to close that thread but would like to ask that someone, anyone in fact, to start a new thread regarding interrupted dribbles and if that person wants to use the play that started this thread as a starting point, please be my guest.

MTD, Sr.

Whay would you even think of closing this thread? This has been an excellent debate, with many good and varied points already made by a buncha different posters. And some posters might want to make some additional points. Also, an "interrupted" dribble sure as heck is germane to this particular discussion, and it sureashell ISN'T off-track. One of the possible scenarios already discussed was the dribbler pushing the ball past the defender, then running around the defender and barely stepping on the OOB line instead of completely going OOB. There's two different calls right there, isn't there, depending on whether the official ruled the player stepped OOB during a "dribble" or during an "interrupted dribble"? And to understand the call, don't you also have to understand exactly what an "interrupted dribble" is?

Lah me!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 18th, 2004 at 05:10 PM]

:)

You have no reason to close this thread.

I am sorry that I mentioned closing this thread because I would almost never close a thread. And I have no reason to close this thread. I just think that the interrupted dribble debate, while very interesting and informative, is moving away from what the original poster wanted to discuss and that was is his play a violation or a technical foul. That is why I suggested that a new thread dedicated to interrupted dribbles would be helpful for everyone.

I hope that everybody will cut me some slack because I am tyring to watch the Ohio State football game while getting ready to go out with my lovely wife and our two wonderful sons to celebrate or 22nd wedding anniversary today.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Sep 18th, 2004 at 06:10 PM]