After a made shot by team A, B1 takes the ball out of bounds. He almost throws it in, then tries to stop himself because his teammate isn't looking. He's tight-roping the line and about to fall over the line so he drops the ball right in front of him onto the court. I blow the whistle, him and I both laugh about how rediculous he looked, other team gets the ball, play continues. Next time down the court he says, "I never touched the ball again." I immediately knew that it shouldn't have been a violation. We laughed about it again, but I am VERY glad this happened in a meaningless rec league game instead of something more serious.

Sometimes the play just looks wrong but isn't. Any other stories like this?

Similar inbound situation, D has his back to thrower, thrower tosses ball of D and then goes in for layup. Gotta really watch for O thrower to establish himself inbounds before touching the ball. I've had it happen both ways and it usually doesn't look right either way. Seems to always draw cheers and jeers from fans.

We've argued about this before, but I'm sure I'm right. If a dribbler steps out of bounds while moving up the court, even if he never touches the ball while he has oob status, it's a violation. But I would contend that he's not touching the ball while his foot is out of bounds, AND THEN DOESN"T TOUCH THE BALL AGAIN AT ALL, it would not be a violation. I know others dont agree, but when I see this, I"m not blowing the whistle until he touches the ball after being momentarily oob. If he doesn't touch the ball again, it looks like a violation, but it's not.

I agree, if the dribbler is not the first to touch the ball again there is no violation. If an opponent touches it you have an interrupted dribble and position on the floor can be reestablished. A teamate touches it, it's a pass and you can reestablish postion again.

I agree with you and Rick. Camron doesn't. The rules language is kinda iffy, imo. I still think that it can't hurt to hold off with your whistle for a half-second to see if the dribbler touches the ball again. That just might save your butt if the "never really happens" case actually does happen, and the dribbler doesn't touch the ball again for some reason.

I have to disagree, Juulie.

The dribble doesn't end when the ball is pushed down toward the court, otherwise you'd have a double dribble call on nearly every posession. If they're still dribbling (a dribble, BTW, ending only under 5 specific situations) when they step on the line, that's OOB, even if somehow the laws of physics change and the ball doesn't bounce back up to their hand.

I'm on the side of blowing the whistle as soon as the dribbler steps out of bounds and not waiting until the ball rises to his/her hand again. Here's an analogous situation that explains why I believe that.

Suppose that dribbler A1 charges into B1 "in between" dribbles, so the ball is not touching A1's hands. You're not going to wait to see if the ball comes back up and touches A1's hand before whistling a player control foul, right? That's because the dribble hasn't ended. Similarly, in the present scenario, A1 is still dribbling while the ball is not touching his/her hand, so stepping on the sideline is an immediate violation.

It's not an interrupted dribble until the ball gets away. If the ball is not away BEFORE they step OOB it's a violation.

The dribble or player control must end BEFORE they step out.

In your play, if the dribble struck the defender and then A1 stepped out, no violation. If A1 grabbed the dribble and tossed the ball back and then stepped out it's not a violation unless A1 then retrieves their own pass. If A1 loses the ball before they step out, you have an interrupted dribble and no violation.

The opponent touching it does not make it an interrupted dribble, but it does end the dribble.;)

I don't believe that Juulie mentioned an interrupted dribble anywhere in her post. She referred to a player stepping on an OOB line while dribbling, but not actually touching the ball. Now, if that player stopped dribbling before he/she touched the ball again, how can he/she still be considered the dribbler? The note in R9-3 applies to a dribbler only, doesn't it?

We've gone around and around on this one before, and still never reached a consensus. The play is just not definitively covered.

What's not clear?

9-3 NOTE: The dribbler HAS committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even if he/she IS NOT touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

It does not get any clearer than that JR.:D

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?

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

What's not clear?

9-3 NOTE: The <font color = red>dribbler</font> HAS committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even if he/she IS NOT touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

It does not get any clearer than that JR.
[/B][/QUOTE]I agree that it certainly is clear. It definitely says the <b>"dribbler"</b>. Again, though, what if the player immediately stopped as soon as soon as he/she stepped on the line- iow, just let the ol' ball keep abouncing in front of him/her? Is he/she still considered a "dribbler" then, even though he/she can't possibly have player control? Doesn't a dribbler cease being a dribbler as soon as player control is lost? If so, isn't he/she now just considered as a simple ol' player without the ball that just happened to step on an OOB line? And no, that's not necessarily an interrupted dribble either. It could be considered simply a loose ball if the original dribbler never bothered to go after it.

We need JeanPaul Sartre to give us the definitive answer on this one- "When is a dribbler not a dribbler?". :D

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][/QUOTE]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.

I agree that it certainly is clear. It definitely says the <b>"dribbler"</b>. Again, though, what if the player immediately stopped as soon as soon as he/she stepped on the line- iow, just let the ol' ball keep abouncing in front of him/her? Is he/she still considered a "dribbler" then, even though he/she can't possibly have player control? Doesn't a dribbler cease being a dribbler as soon as player control is lost? If so, isn't he/she now just considered as a simple ol' player without the ball that just happened to step on an OOB line? And no, that's not necessarily an interrupted dribble either. It could be considered simply a loose ball if the original dribbler never bothered to go after it.

We need JeanPaul Sartre to give us the definitive answer on this one- "When is a dribbler not a dribbler?". :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Like I said before the ball needed to be away before they step out.

If the play goes like this I think it's clear, ball in hand...ball bounces off the floor...foot goes out, violation. Now if it is hand...floor...floor...foot, no violation.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 <em>when</em> 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.

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]

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.;)

You are looking for a loop hole.

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

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

I'm not losing any sleep over it.:D

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.

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 . . .

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.

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.

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 <b>opinion</b>.
3) Lpalmer ain't gonna post any casebook later either that's gonna clear all this up- because there ISN'T one.

!) 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 <b>opinion</b>.
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!

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.

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

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.

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!!!!!

It's called an interrupted dribble.

This case does not prove JR and Rainmaker's point. The difference is that this play COULD be a pass and that pass occurred BEFORE they went OOB.

A toss to save a ball looks very different than a normal dribble. If A1 dribbles and steps out it's a violation right there. If they are dribbling and about to step out and realize it and toss the ball, well that ended the dribble, and on release player control ends. In THIS play if they recover the ball it would be a violation.

You still can't dribble step out and THEN decide to end your dribble.

But this case play is confusing because it means that the dribble CONTINUES even when the player goes out of bounds. Someone explain THAT!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]Luther, it continues as an interrupted dribble, with no player control by the dribbler when he goes OOB. When the player comes back inbounds, he can re-establish player control by either grabbing the ball or dribbling it. Also, the rules state that you can't travel during a dribble- interrupted or otherwise.

You still CAN legally dribble, then have an interrupted dribble, step OOB during the interrupted dribble, then establish yourself back in bounds and resume your dribble. If you disagree with that, find a rule that will back your opinion up before claiming it as fact.

I'm not arguing that and you know it!

Your point is that you need to wait to see if they GIVE UP THE DRIBBLE AFTER THEY STEP OUT.

I've said many, many times that the dribble and/or player control must end BEFORE they step out.

This case play and NOTHING you have said changes that fact.

Mark, you may have written some funnier gobbledegook than the above, but I can't remember when.:D

Whatinthehell has play #2 got to do with this thread? Answer- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! There is NO dribble being started anywhere in this thread, and there is absolutely nothing even remotely resembling there being something germane to starting a dribble anywhere in this thread. This whole thread is about something that happened during a dribble. Well, you CAN'T travel during a dribble- interrupted or otherwise.

And please don't use that "it's the position of the Rules Committee" stuff either. You tried that once before on the the penalty for simultaneous fouls, remember, and you looked pretty silly when the Rules Committee issued something the next year didn't agree with you that it should be treated like a false-double foul. If you CAN find something from the Rules Committee that will back up your opinion on this one, I will gladly apologize to you. Until then, please answer like everyone else in this thread- and just give your opinion without trying to say that the Rules Committee actually backs that opinion.

Btw, could you please tell me in the red-highlighted play above, exactly how A1 can travel after he touches the ball when it rebounds from the floor- like you said? Similar logic? We're talking about something that happened DURING a dribble. That's got absolutely nothing to do with something (a travel) that MUST happen BEFORE or AFTER a dribble. Are you really teaching your students that it's possible to travel during a dribble? That's kind of a basic rule to misinterpret, isn't it.

Lah me!

PS- IAABO interpretations don't mean squat either, in case anyone got the wrong idea from that part of your post. Until the NFHS issues a case play specifically addressing this particular sitch, all anybody can do is give their opinion of what the proper way to call this play should be. And until then no one can definitively say that an opposing opinion is definitely wrong.

Your point is that you need to wait to see if they GIVE UP THE DRIBBLE AFTER THEY STEP OUT.

I've said many, many times that the dribble and/or player control must end BEFORE they step out.

This case play and NOTHING you have said changes that <font color = red>fact</font>. [/B][/QUOTE]BZ, I know what you've said. Hell, we've repeated ourselves often enough that we sureashell should understand what the other is saying. The problem with this play is that we are both interpreting the rule in different ways. And neither one is ending up with anything that could really be termed a "fact" in our answers. We're just giving our "opinions" only. Until the FED issues something explicit on this, either one of us could be right. Or wrong. It's that simple.

Luther, it continues as an interrupted dribble, with no player control by the dribbler when he goes OOB. When the player comes back inbounds, he can re-establish player control by either grabbing the ball or dribbling it. Also, the rules state that you can't travel during a dribble- interrupted or otherwise. [/B][/QUOTE]

But how can you call a double dribble after an interrupted dribble in which you lost player control?

But how can you call a double dribble after an interrupted dribble in which you lost player control? [/B][/QUOTE]

In your play player control was lost on the toss, at this point you have a pass. If A1 retrives the ball it becomes an interrupted dribble, since a dribble can begin in several ways by releasing the ball to the floor. If A1 continues the dribble it's okay. If A1 recovers the ball then begins dribbling they double dribble.

In the original play, if A1 was already dribbling and then makes this toss BEFORE going OOB, they can no longer recover the ball. The toss ends the dribble, it does not cause an interrupted dribble, and a recovery would then be a double dribble if the ball bounces or a travel if they catch it in the air.

In the original play, if A1 was already dribbling and then makes this toss BEFORE going OOB, they can no longer recover the ball. The toss ends the dribble, it does not cause an interrupted dribble, and a recovery would then be a double dribble if the ball bounces or a travel if they catch it in the air. [/B][/QUOTE]The dribbler in the original play could no longer recover the ball ONLY if the toss back inbounds was made by two hands, or if the ball came to rest when the ball was tossed back inbounds with one hand. Both of those scenarios caused the original dribble to end. If the dribbler tipped or batted the ball back inbounds, then the original dribble did not end and you do have an interrupted dribble, and you now can legally go back in bounds and resume that dribble, or end it by grabbing the ball or touching it with both hands simultaneously. That's basically what Luther's case play is saying also, only the dribble is being started in the case play by throwing a caught pass back in bounds.

Jurassic Referee:

Lets look at the two plays once more:

Play #1: A1 is dribbling the ball. While dribbling the ball but while not in contact with the ball, A1 steps on the boundary line. RULING: A1 has committed an out-of-bounds violation. Why? A1 is, by definition, in control of the ball while dribbling and there-by caused the ball to go out-of-bounds, the instant he touched the boundary line. As stated before, some people believe that the official should wait to see if A1 is still out-of-bounds the next time he touches the ball during his dribble before ruling this an out-of-bounds violation. But, the ruling that I have given is supported by rule and casebook.

Play #2: A1 lifts his pivot foot before starting pushing the ball to the floor to start his dribble. RULING: A1 has committed a traveling violation. Why? By rule and casebook play this is a travel violation. Once again, as I have stated before, some people believe that the official should wait to see if A1 touches the ball again, thereby confirming that A1's intent was indeed to dribble. But, once again the rules and casebook plays state that it is a traveling violation by A1 the instant he releases the ball after lifting his pivot foot.

In both cases the rules and casebook plays state that there is not waiting for any further action to take place to determine whether or not a violation has occurred.

Regarding Play #2 and the discussion at an IAABO Rules Interpreters Conference: IAABO is an officials association that deals directly with matters that are of concern to basketball officials. It works with the NFHS and many StateHSAA's on matters concerning basketball officiating and basketball rules. There are many other basketball officials associations (BOA's) that do the same, the only difference is that IAABO is the largest basketball officials association in the world. Having said that its interpreters make interpretations just like the interpreters of any other LOA, these interpretations are based upon the rules, casebook plays, and ideology of the rules committee, just as the interpreter of any non-IAABO LBOA should. As I stated in my earlier post, Dick Schindler took a very active part in the discussion and in defending the casebook ruling.

To be perfectly honest, I do not like the casebook play ruling, I agree with the school of thought that the official should wait and see if A1 touches the ball again thereby eliminating any doubt as to whether A1 had really started a dribble. But, I have always applied the rule per the rule and casebook play, and in fact cannot remember a time when a coach complained about the call. When told that the dribbler had lifted his pivot foot before releasing the ball to start the dribble, the coach almost every time got on the player's case about starting his dribble before lifting his pivot foot.

MTD, Sr.

MTD, the key to that case play is A1 got control while in the air. You can't lift a pivot foot until you have one.;)

Mark, if you have a rule and a case book play that DEFINITIVELY states that the violation does occur as soon as the player steps OOB, and NOT when he touches the ball next on a continuous dribble, then please cite them. I'm not aware of any such definitive rule or case book plays, and if they do exist, they certainly haven't been cited yet in this thread. If you are gonna cite rules or case book plays that have already been cited by others in this thread, then please go back and read my responses to them. They haven't changed, and won't change, and it would be a waste of time to repeat them again.

Btw, A1, by definition, is NOT in player control of a ball during an interrupted dribble.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 22nd, 2004 at 02:33 PM]