OOB or NO CALL?

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.

34 years tomorrow.
mick

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

You have no reason to close this thread.

Talk about "Off track"....

I40 is gone?
Yikes!
6 months?
Yikes, yikes!!

mick

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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]

Congratulations Mark...but I'm wondering why your kids would participate in the anniversary celebrations.

They weren't at the wedding, were they?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Congratulations Mark...but I'm wondering why your kids would participate in the anniversary celebrations.

They weren't at the wedding, were they?


[/B]

Aha! Now we know why the term "interrupted dribble" bothers him!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mick
Talk about "Off track"....

I40 is gone?
Yikes!
6 months?
Yikes, yikes!!

mick

I hope the kids are okay!

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I hope the kids are okay!

Dunno what Ivan did.
The Boy (Basketball player) was evacuated twice in 10 days in Cullowhee.
No word from the Sylva Girl (Basketball player and Basketball coach).
Thanks for the thought.
Frances had an 11" interrupted dribble.
mick

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mick

Dunno what Ivan did.
The Boy (Basketball player) was evacuated twice in 10 days in Cullowhee.
No word from the Sylva Girl (Basketball player and Basketball coach).
Thanks for the thought.
Frances had an 11" interrupted dribble.
mick

Haven't been able to get up with them?

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Haven't been able to get up with them?

The lad is cell phone only, and, I assume, the lady is too. But they have one way phones, I think.
Never turned on unless they're calling.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.

I've already described two plays, you just choose not to notice.

I'll repeat them since you seem to have comprehension troubles.

The play in question, it is possible to dribble past a defender on one bounce just like ANY OTHER DRIBBLE. You have still not answered if you consider the full speed dribble, where the ball is pushed way out in front and the dribbler takes several steps between bounces, an interrupted dribble.

Every dribble has a time when the ball is away from the dribbler, an interrupted dribble occurrs if it STAYS away.

I love how you are all hung up on accidental and control, well excuse me, but both are a part of an interrupted dribble.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
I've already described two plays, you just choose not to notice.

I'll repeat them since you seem to have comprehension troubles.

Come on, BZ, this has been an excellent discussion with no personal attacks so far. Let's keep it that way.

My question to you would be, the definition of player control. If the dribbler pushes the ball forward and then takes several steps without touching the ball, but could still dribble again at any point if she chose to, does she still have player control? Is that a different scenario from the one where the dribbler pushes the ball forward, and then steps around the defender? In this second case, the "dribbler" could not decide at any moment to continue the dribble. THe defender's body is in the way, thus the dribble could be considered interrupted, albeit an "intentional" interruption. At the point where the defender is between the dribbler and the ball, does the dribbler have player control? I'm not asking this to be a smart-aleck, I'm just not sure what the various issues are here.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by blindzebra
I love how you are all hung up on accidental and control, well excuse me, but both are a part of an interrupted dribble.

I'm not hung up on either. I'm simply trying to help your self-admitteed blind self that there's no such animal as accidental, intentional, or purposeful when you're discussing ID.

As for control, yes, player control is defintely an issue when discussing an ID. But the others are not. There's no such thing as an intentional ID.

BTW, I didn't know I was required to answer a question just because you ask it. I haven't noticed you answering every question that's been posed to you. But yes, I would consider this to be an ID. Hopefuilly, you'll be able to sleep now.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Come on, BZ, this has been an excellent discussion with no personal attacks so far. Let's keep it that way.

My question to you would be, the definition of player control. If the dribbler pushes the ball forward and then takes several steps without touching the ball, but could still dribble again at any point if she chose to, does she still have player control? Is that a different scenario from the one where the dribbler pushes the ball forward, and then steps around the defender? In this second case, the "dribbler" could not decide at any moment to continue the dribble. THe defender's body is in the way, thus the dribble could be considered interrupted, albeit an "intentional" interruption. At the point where the defender is between the dribbler and the ball, does the dribbler have player control? I'm not asking this to be a smart-aleck, I'm just not sure what the various issues are here.

Before you accuse me of lowering this discussion read all of his responses to me. I only gave what I got.

An interrupted dribble is the loss of control of the dribble. That is the intent of the rule. The ball is not doing what the dribbler intended it to do.

We all know it when we see it. If the ball is going where the dribbler intended, i.e. past the defender, it is not yet an interrupted dribble, and I'm calling the violation when they step out BEFORE it becomes an interrupted dribble.

This play is no different then a crossover dribble where the direction of the bounce forces the dribbler to change their path to continue the dribble.

I've said it several times, if you use the definition literally EVERY dribble is an interrupted dribble, because all dribbles get away from the dribbler. The interrupted dribble is not caused by where the ball went to the floor, it's where it comes back up that makes it a dribble or an ID.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Is that a different scenario from the one where the dribbler pushes the ball forward, and then steps around the defender? In this second case, the "dribbler" could not decide at any moment to continue the dribble. THe defender's body is in the way, thus the dribble could be considered interrupted, albeit an "intentional" interruption. At the point where the defender is between the dribbler and the ball, does the dribbler have player control?
[/B]

1) An interrupted dribble is the loss of control of the dribble. That is the intent of the rule. The ball is not doing what the dribbler intended it to do.

2) We all know it when we see it. If the ball is going where the dribbler intended, i.e. past the defender, it is not yet an interrupted dribble, and I'm calling the violation when they step out BEFORE it becomes an interrupted dribble.

3) This play is no different then a crossover dribble where the direction of the bounce forces the dribbler to change their path to continue the dribble.

4) I've said it several times, if you use the definition literally EVERY dribble is an interrupted dribble, because all dribbles get away from the dribbler.
[/B][/QUOTE]1) Sorry, BZ, but as BBR said, you don't have a rules justification to make that statement. There is nothing in the rule or case book anywhere that mentions that an interrupted dribble HAS to be "intentional" or "unintentional". It doesn't matter if the ball is or is not doing what the dribbler intended it to, as far as the definition is concerned.

2) If you tap the ball well OVER a defender's head, then go around the defender and continue dribbling several steps up the floor after the ball may have also bounced several times too also before you got to it, are you trying to say that this dribbler ISN'T doing exactly what he intended it to? And that therefore, this too ISN'T an interrupted dribble? And that you would call an immediate violation if the offensive player, who couldn't possibly dribble at a certain point during this action if his arms were 10 feet long and thus he couldn't possibly have player control, happened to then step on an OOB line? If you say "yes" to any of these, please cite a rule to back that "yes" up. I sure can't think of any. Note that this play is NO different than tapping a ball AROUND the defender while dribbling. You just can't assume that the dribbler could immediately start dribbling at any time during that tap-- i.e. there is NO loss of player control. That's just not true for ALL cases, and you're supposed to judge each individual case on it's own merits.

3) That statement is completely wrong too, imo. If a player loses control during that crossover dribble and thus can't immediately dribble, isn't that an interrupted dribble also? Again, can't that offensive player then legally step on an OOB line during that interrupted crossover dribble, as long as he doesn't deliberately go completely OOB to gain an advantage, and also doesn't have player control when he stepped on the line?

4)That statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you trying to tell us that in literally EVERY dribble, the dribbler WILL lose player control? Uh, don't think so. If ALL dribbles got away from the dribbler, then they wouldn't meet the rule book definition of a dribble- i.e. "player in control".

The key part of the definition of an "interrupted dribble" is that there is NO player control. Iow, the dribbler is physically unable to dribble even if he wanted to. It is up to the official's judgement as to whether a dribbler has lost that player control or not. If the official rules that the player has lost control, then there is NO rule in the book that says that the player will commit an OOB violation if he accidentally steps on an OOB line during that loss of player control.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 19th, 2004 at 04:07 AM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

1) An interrupted dribble is the loss of control of the dribble. That is the intent of the rule. The ball is not doing what the dribbler intended it to do.

2) We all know it when we see it. If the ball is going where the dribbler intended, i.e. past the defender, it is not yet an interrupted dribble, and I'm calling the violation when they step out BEFORE it becomes an interrupted dribble.

3) This play is no different then a crossover dribble where the direction of the bounce forces the dribbler to change their path to continue the dribble.

4) I've said it several times, if you use the definition literally EVERY dribble is an interrupted dribble, because all dribbles get away from the dribbler.
[/B]

1) Sorry, BZ, but as BBR said, you don't have a rules justification to make that statement. There is nothing in the rule or case book anywhere that mentions that an interrupted dribble HAS to be "intentional" or "unintentional". It doesn't matter if the ball is or is not doing what the dribbler intended it to, as far as the definition is concerned.

2) If you tap the ball well OVER a defender's head, then go around the defender and continue dribbling several steps up the floor after the ball may have also bounced several times too also before you got to it, are you trying to say that this dribbler ISN'T doing exactly what he intended it to? And that therefore, this too ISN'T an interrupted dribble? And that you would call an immediate violation if the offensive player, who couldn't possibly dribble at a certain point during this action if his arms were 10 feet long and thus he couldn't possibly have player control, happened to then step on an OOB line? If you say "yes" to any of these, please cite a rule to back that "yes" up. I sure can't think of any. Note that this play is NO different than tapping a ball AROUND the defender while dribbling. You just can't assume that the dribbler could immediately start dribbling at any time during that tap-- i.e. there is NO loss of player control. That's just not true for ALL cases, and you're supposed to judge each individual case on it's own merits.

3) That statement is completely wrong too, imo. If a player loses control during that crossover dribble and thus can't immediately dribble, isn't that an interrupted dribble also? Again, can't that offensive player then legally step on an OOB line during that interrupted crossover dribble, as long as he doesn't deliberately go completely OOB to gain an advantage, and also doesn't have player control when he stepped on the line?

4)That statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you trying to tell us that in literally EVERY dribble, the dribbler WILL lose player control? Uh, don't think so. If ALL dribbles got away from the dribbler, then they wouldn't meet the rule book definition of a dribble- i.e. "player in control".

The key part of the definition of an "interrupted dribble" is that there is NO player control. Iow, the dribbler is physically unable to dribble even if he wanted to. It is up to the official's judgement as to whether a dribbler has lost that player control or not. If the official rules that the player has lost control, then there is NO rule in the book that says that the player will commit an OOB violation if he accidentally steps on an OOB line during that loss of player control.

[Edited by blindzebra on Sep 19th, 2004 at 12:00 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by blindzebra

1) Sorry, BZ, but as BBR said, you don't have a rules justification to make that statement. There is nothing in the rule or case book anywhere that mentions that an interrupted dribble HAS to be "intentional" or "unintentional". It doesn't matter if the ball is or is not doing what the dribbler intended it to, as far as the definition is concerned.

2) If you tap the ball well OVER a defender's head, then go around the defender and continue dribbling several steps up the floor after the ball may have also bounced several times too also before you got to it, are you trying to say that this dribbler ISN'T doing exactly what he intended it to? And that therefore, this too ISN'T an interrupted dribble? And that you would call an immediate violation if the offensive player, who couldn't possibly dribble at a certain point during this action if his arms were 10 feet long and thus he couldn't possibly have player control, happened to then step on an OOB line? If you say "yes" to any of these, please cite a rule to back that "yes" up. I sure can't think of any. Note that this play is NO different than tapping a ball AROUND the defender while dribbling. You just can't assume that the dribbler could immediately start dribbling at any time during that tap-- i.e. there is NO loss of player control. That's just not true for ALL cases, and you're supposed to judge each individual case on it's own merits.

3) That statement is completely wrong too, imo. If a player loses control during that crossover dribble and thus can't immediately dribble, isn't that an interrupted dribble also? Again, can't that offensive player then legally step on an OOB line during that interrupted crossover dribble, as long as he doesn't deliberately go completely OOB to gain an advantage, and also doesn't have player control when he stepped on the line?

4)That statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you trying to tell us that in literally EVERY dribble, the dribbler WILL lose player control? Uh, don't think so. If ALL dribbles got away from the dribbler, then they wouldn't meet the rule book definition of a dribble- i.e. "player in control".

The key part of the definition of an "interrupted dribble" is that there is NO player control. Iow, the dribbler is physically unable to dribble even if he wanted to. It is up to the official's judgement as to whether a dribbler has lost that player control or not. If the official rules that the player has lost control, then there is NO rule in the book that says that the player will commit an OOB violation if he accidentally steps on an OOB line during that loss of player control.

[Edited by blindzebra on Sep 19th, 2004 at 12:00 PM] [/B]

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but it's not an interrupted dribble until it gets away from the dribbler and distance is not in any case plays either.

Many of you are invisioning a dribble well beyond the defender, but my partner and I tried it the last time this came up. A dribble with the hand away from the sideline can be bounced past the defender...or between the defender's legs...TOWARD the sideline, one step out with the right foot and back in with the left foot and dribble.

By trying it out it became very clear what should be an interrupted dribble and what is a dribble in this play.