interesting boo-boo

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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. [/B]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]What exactly makes your logic better than my logic?

What you call "logic" is nothing more than YOUR opinion.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 21st, 2004 at 03:15 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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. [/B]

What exactly makes your logic better than my logic?

What you call "logic" is nothing more than YOUR opinion.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 21st, 2004 at 03:15 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]


No, I'm looking to apply the rule under the spirit and intent of the rule.

W.C. Fields, a devout atheist, was caught reading the Bible on his death bed. When asked what he was doing, he said, "I'm looking for a loop hole."

You are looking for a loop hole.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

You are looking for a loop hole.

[/B][/QUOTE]That's still your opinion. I still don't agree with your opinion.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You are looking for a loop hole.

[/B]

That's still your opinion. I still don't agree with your opinion. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

Uh-huh.

But, as obvious as this sounds, a player is in posession of the ball until he is no longer in posession of the ball. Unless that positive condition (loss of posession) has been met before steping OOB, they are still in posession at the time of the violation, hence a violation has occurred whether the ball returns to their hand or it caroms off into the next county.

[Mark Dexter]

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 in my case, the player has given up control after being OOB. Therefore, they had control when they went OOB, and we have a violation.

If he had pulled his hand away, as if to give up control, and then stepped OOB, then it might be a different story . . .

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Uh-huh.

But, as obvious as this sounds, a player is in posession of the ball until he is no longer in posession of the ball. Unless that positive condition (loss of posession) has been met before steping OOB, they are still in posession at the time of the violation, hence a violation has occurred whether the ball returns to their hand or it caroms off into the next county.

I've been trying to get that through for 3 threads now, but it's not working. The dribble and/or player control must end BEFORE they go OOB, and what happens to the ball after the fact is meaningless.

[lrpalmer3]

What about the spirit and intent of this post? What happened to IT?

Actually, you guys and gals are pretty funny.

AND, I have a case play that will clear all this up. Problem is, my book is at home. Stay tuned for my post tonight.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

But, as obvious as this sounds, a player is in posession of the ball until he is no longer in posession of the ball. Unless that positive condition (loss of posession) has been met before steping OOB, they are still in posession at the time of the violation, hence a violation has occurred whether the ball returns to their hand or it caroms off into the next county. [/B]

I've been trying to get that through for 3 threads now, but it's not working. The dribble and/or player control must end BEFORE they go OOB, and what happens to the ball after the fact is meaningless. [/B][/QUOTE]!) I still don't agree with either of you. Same argument, same flaws in it imo.
2) Neither of you has any definitive rules language that will back up your opinion.
3) Lpalmer ain't gonna post any casebook later either that's gonna clear all this up- because there ISN'T one.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I've been trying to get that through for 3 threads now, but it's not working. The dribble and/or player control must end BEFORE they go OOB, and what happens to the ball after the fact is meaningless. [/B]

!) I still don't agree with either of you. Same argument, same flaws in it imo.
2) Neither of you has any definitive rules language that will back up your opinion.
3) Lpalmer ain't gonna post any casebook later either that's gonna clear all this up- because there ISN'T one. [/B][/QUOTE]

And what is backing up YOUR opinion.

You have a dribble, you have player control, you have a violation end of debate!

[lrpalmer3]

Caase play 7.1.1 Situation D: A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning inbounds; (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball; or (c) picks up the ball after returning to the court and then begins a dribble. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b). Illigal in (c) as the toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes the start of a dribble, bribbling a second time after picking up the ball is an illegal dribble violation. (4-35; 9-5)



Since the toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitues the start of a dribble, it is legal in (b) for a player to start a dribble, then immediately leave the court, then immediately return back to the court and dribble.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am joining this thread a little late, and I apologize for my posting go be somewhat on the lengthy side. The play being discussed in this thread can be grouped with two other plays where the logic to determine whether or not a violation has occurred is the same.

Play #1: The play being discussed in this thread.

Play #2: A1 lifts his pivot foot before releasing the ball to start a dribble.

In both of the above plays, A1 has committed a floor violation. A1 has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds in #1, and has committed traveling violation in #2.

The question that is germane to both plays is: When did the violation occur?

This thread has produced two main schools of thought with regard to Play #1: 1) A1 causes the ball to go out-of-bounds as soon as he touches out-of-bounds even though he is not touching the ball when he touches out-of-bounds; or 2) A1 does not cause the ball to go out-of-bounds unless he has out-of-bounds status the next time he touches the ball.

Similar logic can be applied to Play #2. 1) A1 travels when he releases the ball to start a dribble; or 2) A1 travels when he touches the ball after it has rebounded from the floor.

When Dick Schindler was still the NFHS Rules Editor, Play #2 was discussed great length at an IAABO Fall Rules Interpreter's Conference and Dick Schindler took part in the discussion. Many interpreters thought that the then and still current Casebook play was not correct (they took Position #2.). Their reasoning was: The official does not know if A1 is releasing the ball for a dribble or a pass. If A1 does not again touch the ball then he did not start a dribble. The logic for defending this position is the same as defending Position #2 in Play #1.

The casebook play states that A1 has traveled when A1 releases the ball to start his dribble. Dick took Position #1 which is the casebook ruling. One can see from reading both the rules and casebook plays that in Play #1 A1 has committed a out-of-bounds violation as soon as he touched out-of-bounds with his foot and that in Play #2 A1 has committed a traveling violation as soon as he released the ball to start a dribble. It is the position of the Rules Committee that in both Plays #1 and #2, is that the official is not to wait until A1 retouches the ball to for the violation to be called.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by lrpalmer3
Caase play 7.1.1 Situation D: A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning inbounds; (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball; or (c) picks up the ball after returning to the court and then begins a dribble. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b). Illigal in (c) as the toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes the start of a dribble, bribbling a second time after picking up the ball is an illegal dribble violation. (4-35; 9-5)



Since the toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitues the start of a dribble, it is legal in (b) for a player to start a dribble, then immediately leave the court, then immediately return back to the court and dribble.

It apepars to me that you're AGREEING with Jurassic and me, not refuting! Am I missing something?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am joining this thread a little late, and I apologize for my posting go be somewhat on the lengthy side. The play being discussed in this thread can be grouped with two other plays where the logic to determine whether or not a violation has occurred is the same.

Play #1: The play being discussed in this thread.

Play #2: A1 lifts his pivot foot before releasing the ball to start a dribble.

In both of the above plays, A1 has committed a floor violation. A1 has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds in #1, and has committed traveling violation in #2.

The question that is germane to both plays is: When did the violation occur?

This thread has produced two main schools of thought with regard to Play #1: 1) A1 causes the ball to go out-of-bounds as soon as he touches out-of-bounds even though he is not touching the ball when he touches out-of-bounds; or 2) A1 does not cause the ball to go out-of-bounds unless he has out-of-bounds status the next time he touches the ball.

Similar logic can be applied to Play #2. 1) A1 travels when he releases the ball to start a dribble; or 2) A1 travels when he touches the ball after it has rebounded from the floor.

When Dick Schindler was still the NFHS Rules Editor, Play #2 was discussed great length at an IAABO Fall Rules Interpreter's Conference and Dick Schindler took part in the discussion. Many interpreters thought that the then and still current Casebook play was not correct (they took Position #2.). Their reasoning was: The official does not know if A1 is releasing the ball for a dribble or a pass. If A1 does not again touch the ball then he did not start a dribble. The logic for defending this position is the same as defending Position #2 in Play #1.

The casebook play states that A1 has traveled when A1 releases the ball to start his dribble. Dick took Position #1 which is the casebook ruling. One can see from reading both the rules and casebook plays that in Play #1 A1 has committed a out-of-bounds violation as soon as he touched out-of-bounds with his foot and that in Play #2 A1 has committed a traveling violation as soon as he released the ball to start a dribble. It is the position of the Rules Committee that in both Plays #1 and #2, is that the official is not to wait until A1 retouches the ball to for the violation to be called.

It appears to me that the issue is when player control ends. In your "comparable" play, the ball-handler clearly still has player contol when the pivot foot is lifted. In the play I'm describing, I contend that since we can't normally use the player's intent or thinking to judge, we should judge only by what we see (anticipate the play, not the call) and not define player control further than we can prove it with tape.

[lrpalmer3]

Originally posted by rainmaker


It apepars to me that you're AGREEING with Jurassic and me, not refuting! Am I missing something?

Most definitely!!! I am agreeing with you and Jurassic. Your point is so obvious to me that I refuse to discuss it.

But this case play is confusing because it means that the dribble CONTINUES even when the player goes out of bounds. Someone explain THAT!!!!!