Re: Interesting
 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong point of view - it's not a judgement issue regarding rewarding bad plays, but a judgement issue of control. The double-dribble violation occurs when when the player dribbles (control), holds the ball (control), then dribbles again (control). If the player does not have control of the ball, they cannot violate (travel, double-dribble). If a player dribbles, loses control (fumble, flub, screw-up, bad pass, bad hand-eye coordination, whatever you want to call it) and goes and gets it, there is no violation. However, where a violation usually occurs in this case is when the player dribbles, loses it, goes and gets it, picks it up, then starts to dribble again. Losing control and gaining control is not the violation, but dribble, hold, dribble again is.

I understand that
 

What do you think the mandated (and/or appropriate) call is if a player dribbles, picks up the dribble (gains control), then 'fumbles' or 'mishandles' the ball, drops it, and picks it up?

Re: I understand that
 

Nothing. Mishandling and dropping the ball is not the same as a dribble. A dribble is a controlled pushing the ball to the floor and bouncing it. So in your case, there is dribble (control), picking it up (control), then a fumble (no control), and picking it up (control). A double-dribble violation is dribble, hold, dribble. That didn't happen in your case.

Now, I guarantee you everyone in the gym will nod in agreement when you blow your whistle for the violation. But it would be a wrong call. But remember, these are the same fans and coaches that know all about the three-second rule and over-the-back. ;)

No call is the only appropriate call here. The rule book defines fumble as a loss of control. To lose control implies you had gained control.
Look at football for example. What you describe as a legitimate fumble is more accurately defined as a "muff" in football. The difference is huge on punt returns. If a player fumbles the ball (had control and lost it), the defense is allowed to pick it up and run with it. If he muffs the punt (loses it before catching it), the defense can recover but not advance the ball.
The NFHS rule book says it's legal for a player, in all circumstances, to fumble a ball and retrieve it. You can't split hairs to come up with a reason to call it.

What, if anything, is the difference between a fumble (not 'loss of control' but 'accidental loss of control')and a bad play?

A bad play is dribbling into a trap. There's no rule definition for a "bad play." There is a rule definition, and accompanying allowance for, a fumble.

Re: Re: Interesting
 

It is not necessary for a player to hold/control the ball for the first dribble to end. The first dribble will also end when it is touched by both hands (as if the player were attempting to catch the ball). It would still be an illegal dribble to resume dribbling after that point.

Are you joking?
 

I mean 'bad play' as in 'the ball hit him in a bad place, in his hands'.

Re: Are you joking?
 

The difference is the rule. Don't like it? Think it needs to be clarified? Take it up through the channels.

Re: Re: Re: Interesting
 

You're right, I probably should've stated it more along the lines of dribble ends, control, start another dribble. There's also the issue of what happens if the defense bats it away. But I guess the point I was trying to make was don't get too hung up on terminology - loss of control vs. accidental loss of control vs. fumble vs. muff vs. bad play, etc. I was just trying to get across that it's not a violation to pick up the ball after losing control of it, but the violation occurs because of the first dribble ending, then starting a second dribble. Also, don't call a play dead because it "looks bad"; heck, if that were the case I would've had more turnovers than minutes played. :)

Re: Re: It's so obvious even you can understand it?
 

No. Just crisper rules. It can be done.

Re: Re: Re: It's so obvious even you can understand it?
 

Actually, in this case, you seem to want a more complex rule that would allow you to call a violation on some fumbles while letting others go. It's simpler the way it is.
Regardless, the rule is clear cut now, in that the fumble is allowed. The fumble implies prior control. The fumbles you list don't have that, they are muffs (still defined as fumbles in NFHS.) "Fumble," as defined by NFHS, is too broad to exclude your "bad plays."
Allowing a fumble doesn't reward bad play, it just forces the player to commit a real violation before taking the ball away. To have an illegal dribble, the player must have player control. To have a travel, the player must have player control. A fumble itself can be neither. I really don't know how much more crisp it can be.

There's rules I don't like, too, but I don't alter my game to fit my rules preferences. Even though my change would actually be a simplification, as opposed to yours.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's so obvious even you can understand it?
 

No. Jurassic had this right WAY BACK LONG AGO, in the Jurassic era one might say. It is a matter of judgment - on a continuum. If a player unaccountably drops the ball, that looks pretty ACCIDENTAL, as the definition requires. If a player throws a pass BADLY, because his/her technique is that of the unschooled moron, the ball may flip or slip close by. How close does the ball have to fall for it to be an accidental result, as opposed to a lousy pass. And surely many players would be happy to tell you that it was an accident that any manoeuver that went badly was accidental.

If you think that the rules are crisp, don't produce resultants which cannot clearly be resolved from within the rule set, you don't know enough about rules in general. I am not trying to wiggle the rule around. I am pointing out that it has more grey area than many rules, and could be improved.

It would be great to hear from anyone who remembers (or knows) when the concept of 'fumble' came into the game, and what the rational was. Was it among the Naismithian orignal rules?

Re: Interesting
 

That just means that you've now been wrong once. :)

Instead of just disagreeing with me, cite the rule that states that this is a violation. Because the rule has already been cited that says that it isn't.