interesting boo-boo

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

1) So a player pushes the ball toward the ground, steps on the OOB line, and then moves her hand away so the ball doesn't come back up into her hand. Do you not consider this OOB?

2)I say it has to be OOB - a player can't violate and then do something to change the situation to a legal play. [/B]

1) Nope. I agree with Juulie.

2)Yabut, has the player violated if the player is no longer the dribbler? The question is when does a dribbler cease to be a dribbler. It's obvious from the wording of R9-3NOTE that this violation only pertains to a dribbler. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think the problem is that we have to define a dribble by the end of the dribble. 4-15-4 a-d are rather obvious, if the dribbler steps OOB, comes back in, and does any of those, you know that they were dribbling when they went OOB. 4-15-4(e) states the dribble ends when the ball becomes dead - in that case, they are dribbling until you blow them OOB.

The only possibilities here would be in 4-15-5 and 6d, the interrupted dribble rule. If the player is dribbling, each push towards the ground does not meet the first requirement - deflecting off of the dribbler. If you have an actual deflection, then the player steps OOB, then you have no violation. The other option is if the ball "momentarily gets away from the dribbler," and perhaps that's the crux of the argument. I would say that (a) pulling the hand away does not mean the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler, and (b) even if the ball does get away from the dribbler (or we say that pulling the hand away equals that), the ball would have to 'get away' and be recognized before the player steps on the OOB line.

The dribble is either in effect or has stopped based on its status at the instant the player makes contact out of bounds. You can't wait and see what the player does afterwards to end/continue the dribble.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
You can't wait and see what the player does afterwards to end/continue the dribble.

Why not? That's what you'd do if the dribbler tapped the ball over the head of the defender and then ran around. You wouldn't blow the whistle until you saw whether the dribbler let it bounce or not, before touching it.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Why not? That's what you'd do if the dribbler tapped the ball over the head of the defender and then ran around. You wouldn't blow the whistle until you saw whether the dribbler let it bounce or not, before touching it.

The rule book says explicitly that unless it was an interrupted dribble BEFORE they step out, it's a violation.

By taking your approach there is nothing but interrupted dribbles. If something does not cause them to lose player control before they go out it's a violation.

It's really simple, for once the rule book says it exactly in 9-3 note.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
The rule book says explicitly that unless it was an interrupted dribble BEFORE they step out, it's a violation.

[/B]

How do you know that it isn't an interrupted dribble until the player touched it AFTER they stepped out? And please don't start again on intentional dribbles must be accidental. There is NO wording to that effect anywhere in the rule book, as BktBallRef keeps pointing out to you. There are also no accurate criteria available in the book that will tell you EXACTLY when a dribble does become an interrupted dribble, except that player control is lost. Judgement call, BZ, and not everyone agrees with your judgement. If player control is lost before the player touches the ball again, then that player cannot be a "dribbler" by rule- and R9-3NOTE very explicitly states that it ONLY applies to "dribblers".

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

How do you know that it isn't an interrupted dribble until the player touched it AFTER they stepped out? And please don't start again on intentional dribbles must be accidental. There is NO wording to that effect anywhere in the rule book, as BktBallRef keeps pointing out to you. There are also no accurate criteria available in the book that will tell you EXACTLY when a dribble does become an interrupted dribble, except that player control is lost. Judgement call, BZ, and not everyone agrees with your judgement. If player control is lost before the player touches the ball again, then that player cannot be a "dribbler" by rule- and R9-3NOTE very explicitly states that it ONLY applies to "dribblers". [/B]

That is completely illogical. By that interpretation there would never be a dribble or player control during a dribble. Every dribble is AWAY from the dribbler on every bounce; by your logic every bounce is an interrupted dribble until it bounces back to the dribbler's hand, and that is not the intent of the rule.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Why not? That's what you'd do if the dribbler tapped the ball over the head of the defender and then ran around. You wouldn't blow the whistle until you saw whether the dribbler let it bounce or not, before touching it.

If in running around the defender the offensive player goes OOB, then yes, I am blowing the whistle without waiting to see if the ball bounces on the floor again. This is not because I am calling a violation, though. I am giving the offensive player a T.

In my opinion, Juulie, your original play comes down to a judgment by the official. If the official deems that the offensive player has player control, then the whistle should be blown when the player steps OOB, however if you feel that no player control exists and you have an ID, then no whistle is necessary and just play on.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

That is completely illogical. By that interpretation there would never be a dribble or player control during a dribble. Every dribble is AWAY from the dribbler on every bounce; by your logic every bounce is an interrupted dribble until it bounces back to the dribbler's hand, and that is not the intent of the rule.

[/B]

Nope, I'm telling you that I think the dribble is still a dribble when the player touches it again after bouncing it. And I also think that it's illogical to call a violation before it actually occurs.

It still boils down to opinion vs. opinion, because of the iffy language.

[Ref in PA]

A1, dribbling toward the sideline, realizes his momentum will take him oob. His position is such that he cannot pass to a teammate. Right before he goes oob, he voluntarily gives up his dribble and control by pushing the ball down court along the sideling inbounds. On the next step after he releases the ball, his momentum takes him oob. It sounds like some of you would call this a violation because you deem the dribble to have continued, where in fact, the intent of the player was to have his dribbled stopped.

What has actually happened? Dribbling A1 while inbounds was the last to touch a ball. The ball stays inbounds. The momentum of A1 carries him oob. At no time did an oob player touch the ball. At no time did the A1 come back inbounds and touch the ball. I think you have to call the play as it physically happens and not try to get into the head of the player to determine intent.

If A1 comes back inbounds to touch the ball first, THEN and only THEN do you have to judge the intent and control of A1. I think you will get into more trouble calling an anticipated violation than waiting to see if the violation actually occurs.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
A1, dribbling toward the sideline, realizes his momentum will take him oob. His position is such that he cannot pass to a teammate. Right before he goes oob, he voluntarily gives up his dribble and control by pushing the ball down court along the sideline inbounds. On the next step after he releases the ball, his momentum takes him oob. It sounds like some of you would call this a violation because you deem the dribble to have continued, where in fact, the intent of the player was to have his dribbled stopped.

What has actually happened? Dribbling A1 while inbounds was the last to touch a ball. The ball stays inbounds. The momentum of A1 carries him oob. At no time did an oob player touch the ball. At no time did the A1 come back inbounds and touch the ball. I think you have to call the play as it physically happens and not try to get into the head of the player to determine intent.

If A1 comes back inbounds to touch the ball first, THEN and only THEN do you have to judge the intent and control of A1. I think you will get into more trouble calling an anticipated violation than waiting to see if the violation actually occurs.

Excellent points and I certainly agree. I don't think that it really matters either whether he pushed the ball down court along the sideline or not. He could push the ball straight down to keep it inbounds before he went OOB, and the same logic that you used would still be applicable.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Why not? That's what you'd do if the dribbler tapped the ball over the head of the defender and then ran around. You wouldn't blow the whistle until you saw whether the dribbler let it bounce or not, before touching it.

That's because the violation in that case is on the touching - you're not waiting to see if they can make something legal, you're waiting to see if they do something illegal. In this case, the violation results from being OOB, not from touching the ball a second time - call it when you see it.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
Right before he goes oob, he voluntarily gives up his dribble and control by pushing the ball down court along the sideling inbounds. On the next step after he releases the ball, his momentum takes him oob.

Apples and oranges here.

By "pushing the ball down court," A1 has given up control of the ball. No player control, no OOB in this case - as long as the ball is actually away before he steps on the line.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

That's because the violation in that case is on the touching - you're not waiting to see if they can make something legal, you're waiting to see if they do something illegal. In this case, the violation results from being OOB, not from touching the ball a second time- call it when you see it.

Nope, can't agree. The violation results from being OOB while in possession- i.e. player control- of the ball. The question here is when that possession(player control) actually ends in this particular case. If the possession ended before the touching, you can't have a violation because the player is no longer a dribbler, and R9-3NOTE can't possibly apply.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Apples and oranges here.

By "pushing the ball down court," A1 has given up control of the ball. No player control, no OOB in this case - as long as the ball is actually away before he steps on the line.

Doesn't the exact same logic apply if the player refuses to touch the ball again after stepping OOB? What's the difference? The player has given up player control also in that case, hasn't he, and no player control- no OOB?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Doesn't the exact same logic apply if the player refuses to touch the ball again after stepping OOB? What's the difference? The player has given up player control also in that case, hasn't he, and no player control- no OOB?

But the question is when did they give up control? If they go OOB and then decide to not dribble again, it's a violation. They were in control at the time of the step OOB. It all comes down to the official's judgement of the order of events.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

But the question is when did they give up control? If they go OOB and then decide to not dribble again, it's a violation. They were in control at the time of the step OOB. It all comes down to the official's judgement of the order of events.

Good luck, I've been saying that for about 20 posts on three threads about this stupid play. Sad when logic is not applied because the language in the rule book is vague.