the end of a dribble

[ysong]

According to NFHS (or NCAA in this regard) rules
ART. 4 . . . The dribble ends when:
d. An opponent bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) the ball.

But in the "double dribble" section, the rule says:

"A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended,
unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
...
ART. 2 . . . A bat by an opponent.
"

Then a question arises: what if an opponent bats the ball but does not cause the dribbler to lose control of the ball, can the dribbler continue to dribble? (if we want to follow the rule literally.)

I don't think any referee will call "double dribble" if the dribbler keeps dribbling, but do I miss something here? My question is caused by the inconsistency of the rule, or my poor English, or both?

Thanks.

[blindzebra]

The rules are consistent, but sometimes poorly written.

In the first the dribble ended because of the batted ball. That touching allows a second dribble, which is covered in the second.

It would be much easier if all parts of each rule were together instead of parts in 2 or 3 different locations.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ysong
According to NFHS (or NCAA in this regard) rules
ART. 4 . . . The dribble ends when:
d. An opponent bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) the ball.

But in the "double dribble" section, the rule says:

"A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended,
unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
...
ART. 2 . . . A bat by an opponent.
"

Then a question arises: what if an opponent bats the ball but does not cause the dribbler to lose control of the ball, can the dribbler continue to dribble? (if we want to follow the rule literally.)

I don't think any referee will call "double dribble" if the dribbler keeps dribbling, but do I miss something here? My question is caused by the inconsistency of the rule, or my poor English, or both?

Thanks.

Both. You need to read with "spirit and intent" -- and I'm guessing that's tough to do when English is not your primary language.

A couple of points to remember:

1) The rules are a finite set of words to an infinite set of possibilities. The rules can't cover everything.

2) The rules were written by gentlemen, for gentlemen, not by lawyers, for lawyers.

[ysong]

Originally posted by blindzebra
The rules are consistent, but sometimes poorly written.

In the first the dribble ended because of the batted ball. That touching allows a second dribble, which is covered in the second.

a lawyer may argue that the second touch does not allow a second dribble, because it does not cause the dribbler to lose control of the ball. I, for one, will not blame the lawyer. (BTW, he is a part-time official)

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by ysong

a lawyer may argue that the second touch does not allow a second dribble, because it does not cause the dribbler to lose control of the ball. I, for one, will not blame the lawyer. (BTW, he is a part-time official)

A bat requires losing the ball.

If A1 is dribbling and B1 bats the ball away it ends A1's dribble and A1 may recover the ball with both hands and dribble again.

If A1 has dribbled and is now holding the ball and B1 bats it from A1's hands, A1 may dribble again. If B1 just touches the ball without A1 losing control a second dribble WOULD be a violation.

[ysong]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins
Both. You need to read with "spirit and intent" -- and I'm guessing that's tough to do when English is not your primary language.

the spirit and intent is universal. It spreads beyound the boundaries of languages. But the imperfectly written rules will confuse the reader about the intentions.


A couple of points to remember:

1) The rules are a finite set of words to an infinite set of possibilities. The rules can't cover everything.

Agree.

2) The rules were written by gentlemen, for gentlemen, not by lawyers, for lawyers.

It is not a good excuse for obvious inconsistenies in the rules.

how about a simple modification: the dribble ends when ...an opponent bats the ball AWAY...?

What spirit or intention would be lost in this simplest modification? then both gentlemen and lawyers may find it consistent.

Thanks.

[ysong]

Originally posted by blindzebra

A bat requires losing the ball.

[/B]

Obviously, I agree with you in this particular case.

Nevertheless, it is neither stated nor implied by the rules or by the English language.

thanks.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by ysong

Obviously, I agree with you in this particular case.

Nevertheless, it is neither stated nor implied by the rules or by the English language.

thanks. [/B]

4.15.4 situation F in the case book, says otherwise.

[ysong]

Originally posted by blindzebra

4.15.4 situation F in the case book, says otherwise. [/B]

Bzebra, thanks. I believe you are right.
Even though I understand that rules are not perfect, but there should not be an inconsistency as big as I perceive it is. So I have to suspect that the English language plays a trick to me again.

Would you do me a favor again and, honestly, , tell me something: as a natural English speaker, when you read the part of the rule "the opponent bats the ball", do you naturally, automatically infer that not only the opponent bats the ball, he bats the ball "away" also? in other word, the word "bat" naturally implies "bat it away", unless stated otherwise?

thanks.

ysong

[BktBallRef]

Makes no difference whether he bats it "away" or not. That's of no consequence. If it was, then you would have to define how far "away" is. 2 feet? 5 feet? 10 feet?

See what I'm saying? Once the defender bats the ball, it makes no difference whether it get "away" or not.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ysong

Would you do me a favor again and, honestly, , tell me something: as a natural English speaker, when you read the part of the rule "the opponent bats the ball", do you naturally, automatically infer that not only the opponent bats the ball, he bats the ball "away" also? in other word, the word "bat" naturally implies "bat it away", unless stated otherwise?

You know, I am a native American English speaker, and I've had trouble with that very sentence. Although my problem came from "the other side of the coin." If a dribbler "picks up" her dribble, and is standing holding the ball with both hands, and a defender comes up and slaps the ball good and hard, is that a bat, and does the dribbler now get another dribble? I'm with you, ysong, that the rule is poorly written.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Makes no difference whether he bats it "away" or not. That's of no consequence. If it was, then you would have to define how far "away" is. 2 feet? 5 feet? 10 feet?

See what I'm saying? Once the defender bats the ball, it makes no difference whether it get "away" or not.

Ysong is talking about bat = touch and does touching without A losing control = a bat?

Or are you saying that if A1 has ended their dribble and B1 hits the ball and A1 never loses control, that A1 can dribble again?

What a bat is, is defined, intentionally striking the ball with the hand(s). The results of the bat are only discussed in the case plays and the ball being "AWAY" is relevant to an illegal dribble. The bat must cause a loss of control.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[ The bat must cause a loss of control.

reference?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by ysong

Bzebra, thanks. I believe you are right.
Even though I understand that rules are not perfect, but there should not be an inconsistency as big as I perceive it is. So I have to suspect that the English language plays a trick to me again.

Would you do me a favor again and, honestly, , tell me something: as a natural English speaker, when you read the part of the rule "the opponent bats the ball", do you naturally, automatically infer that not only the opponent bats the ball, he bats the ball "away" also? in other word, the word "bat" naturally implies "bat it away", unless stated otherwise?

thanks.

ysong [/B]

The rule book uses it several times in the dribble rules and only defines it as intentionally striking the ball with the hand(s).

Unfortunately they do not clearly state the results of this bat.

Under starting a dribble it means batting it to the floor.

Under ending a dribble we must look in the case book 4.15.4.F and it tells us away.

We only get a loss of control for an illegal second dribble. Most would interpret that as meaning out of A1's hands, although I've seen it argued that based on how bat is used in starting a dribble and 4.15.4.F that the bat must cause the ball to hit the floor.

You are not alone in your frustration with the language in the rule book. It's clear that much of the rule book causes confusion, otherwise this forum would not be so busy.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

reference?

9-5 says: A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her dribble has ended, unless it is after he/she has LOST CONTROL because of:

A. A try for goal.

B. A BAT BY AN OPPONENT.

C. A pass or fumble which has then touched, or has been touched by another player.