OOB or NO CALL?

[blindzebra]

To further my point replace the past the defender play with this one.

A1 is dribbling near the sideline with their left hand. They dribble the ball and step on the boundary and then as the ball comes up it deflects off their leg.

Many are calling the dribble past as an interrupted dribble on what MIGHT happen, in my new play the ball is away from the dribbler's hand as they step out and then it does become an ID on the deflection AFTER they stepped OOB.

It's not an interrupted dribble until it gets away, not because it could get away.

[eventnyc]

From my interpreter:

Dennis - A player who is dribbling (player control ) and steps out of bounds during the dribble, even though he is not touching the ball at the time has violated. Rule7 -1-1;
4 -15-5.. Player control is the key here. There is no statement about an interrupted dribble or temporary loss of control. Violation.
Regards - Jimmy

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.

[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

By trying it out it became very clear what should be an interrupted dribble and what is a dribble in this play. [/B][/QUOTE]I agree that the ball must get away from the dribbler to have an interrupted dribble- i.e. there's no player control- and I also agree that "distance" is not in any rules or case book plays. However, I also CAN'T find "intent" in any rules or case book plays either, which was BktBallRef's point.

Trying it out with a buddy is great, and I certainly respect your right to have an opinion. However, I don't think that your opinion really agrees with the rules as written. Maybe if you answered the 4 questions above that I had- especially #2, I might have a clearer idea where you're coming from though.

Take your time. There's a Yankees game, and about fourty-eleven NFL games on.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[/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.

By trying it out it became very clear what should be an interrupted dribble and what is a dribble in this play. [/B][/QUOTE]I agree that the ball must get away from the dribbler to have an interrupted dribble- i.e. there's no player control- and I also agree that "distance" is not in any rules or case book plays. However, I also CAN'T find "intent" in any rules or case book plays either, which was BktBallRef's point.

Trying it out with a buddy is great, and I certainly respect your right to have an opinion. However, I don't think that your opinion really agrees with the rules as written. Maybe if you answered the 4 questions above that I had- especially #2, I might have a clearer idea where you're coming from though.

Take your time. There's a Yankees game, and about fourty-eleven NFL games on. [/B][/QUOTE]

It's an interrupted dribble when it clearly gets away from the dribbler. I'm not disputing the POTENTIAL for an interrupted dribble, but if A1 steps out before the ball CLEARLY gets away, it's a violation IMO.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by eventnyc
From my interpreter:

Dennis - A player who is dribbling (player control ) and steps out of bounds during the dribble, even though he is not touching the ball at the time has violated. Rule7 -1-1;
4 -15-5.. Player control is the key here. There is no statement about an interrupted dribble or temporary loss of control. Violation.
Regards - Jimmy

That's cool. It doesn't address the case of a player pushing the ball past a defender who's got the sideline blocked, and then that player running around that defender completely OOB with the intent of avoiding contact with that defender though. That's what your initial post said- NOT that the player just stepped on a sideline. Run your initial post- word-for-word- by your interpreter and see what he says.