Catch your own fumble

[cford]

Situation 1:

Player drives to basket, jumps in air to shoot a layup, fumbles the ball and comes back down with it. Is this a travel? Did player control end when the player fumbled it which would cause it not to be a travel?

I've seen this called a travel many times and a number of officials have told me it is a travel but by rule I'm not sure. You can always recover a fumble, right?

Situation 2:

Player goes up for a jump shot and ball slips out of hands. Player lands and then catches the ball. Is this any different from situation 1?

[brainbrian]

Situation 1
I think this might be one of those cases when you have to go into the head of a player - which is always a case for trouble, and you have to decide if the fumble was intentional, because the definition of fumble (NFHS 4-21) is an "accidental loss of player control," where the keyword is "accidental." Now, if a defensive player is there and you think he might have caused the fumble in anyway, I would probably reward that defensive player and call a travel.

Situation 2
I'd go with situation 1

This reminds me of another I'd like to throw in that I've been debating for a while, hopefully cford won't mind .
Situation 3
Last season a kid was dribbling, he clearly (both feet) went out of bounds, but the ball stayed in bounds. He then came back in bounds, established both feet in bounds, then continued his dribble. My partner and I considered it legal. Were we right?

[cford]

Originally posted by brainbrian
Situation 1
I think this might be one of those cases when you have to go into the head of a player - which is always a case for trouble, and you have to decide if the fumble was intentional, because the definition of fumble (NFHS 4-21) is an "accidental loss of player control," where the keyword is "accidental." Now, if a defensive player is there and you think he might have caused the fumble in anyway, I would probably reward that defensive player and call a travel.

If the defensive player caused the ball to fumble by touching it then you can't call a travel.

Originally posted by brainbrian
Situation 2
I'd go with situation 1

This reminds me of another I'd like to throw in that I've been debating for a while, hopefully cford won't mind .
Situation 3
Last season a kid was dribbling, he clearly (both feet) went out of bounds, but the ball stayed in bounds. He then came back in bounds, established both feet in bounds, then continued his dribble. My partner and I considered it legal. Were we right?

It depends if the player went out of bounds on purpose. If he did then it is a technical. If not then it is an interrupted dribble and he can continue when he establishes himself inbounds (only if he didn't touch it with two hands).

[Daryl H. Long]

Sit 1 & 2: Both FED and NCAA seem to allow a player to always recover a fumble no matter what action preceded the fumble. While it may seem consistent it also seems to be at odds with other rules.

Those who say Travelling is the correct rule apply FED 4-43-3b. Why isn't Fumble listed here to negate the travelling in addition to passing or a try? Rule 4-15-4 Note 2 says there is no player control during a fumble. If so, why is it not included in FED 4-12-6.

The appropriate rules in question are as follows:

FED Rules: 4-15 Dribble, 4-21 Fumble, 9-5-3 Illegal Dribble
Fed case: 4.15.4 Situation D.

NCAA rules: 4-18 Dribble, 4-29 Fumble and AR 14, 9-7-1c.

In both codes the rules are similar with the exception that NCAA has rules support for a player who fumbles to recover the ball (4-29-2). FED makes no such statement in the rules but is mentioned only in the Case book play (4.15.4 Sit D). The case cites (9-5) to allow recovery but it is not mentioned in that rule either.

I am OK with the ruling of 9-5-3 that would not allow a player who loses control of the ball via fumble cannot dribble a second time unless ball touches another player, but how does that infer they may recover?

Let's not confuse fumbles with interrupted dribbles. An interrupted dribble can only occur while a dribble is in process. A fumble can only occur BEFORE a dribble has started or AFTER the dribble has ended. Think about it.

Therefore, if a player who has not dribbled fumbles the ball he may secure player control by starting a dribble or just by recovering the loose ball. If he recovers, since he has never dribbled he may then start a dribble.

If a player who is dribbling loses the ball meeting definition of interrupted dribble then he may continue to dribble or just recover.

If a player who is dribbling tries to stop and hold ball but in his ATTEMPT to secure possession it bounces away after he hit it with both hands then he may only go and recover. That ruling I believe is supported by NCAA AR 14 and FED 4.15.4.Sit D (d). Note: (c) is not a fumble but an interrupted dribble yet the last sentence seems to infer that it is a fumble like in (d) to allow the recovery. In (c) the recovery ends the dribble. In (d) the dribble ended when player touched with both hands.

What is not covered by FED Case play or NCAA AR's are those situations in which a dribble has ended and the player is securely holding the ball, then Fumbles. It is then I believe no matter how he loses possession of the ball he vioates the dribble rule unless another player touches the ball first (FED 9-5-3 and NCAA 9-7-1). My rationale is that if those rules allow him to be the first to touch/recover recover his fumble without dribbling again using the same logic he may also recover his pass. The only prohibition in both cases is dribbling again. Think about it. how many of us are going to allow someong to recover his own pass?

It is late and I could write more on this but the book is already too long.

[Daryl H. Long]

For Situation 3:

In Fed it is an immediate dead ball when the dribbler, even while not touching the ball, steps outof bounds. Rule 9-3.

In NCAA it is not a violation until the player who has volutarily gone out of bounds comes back in bounds and is first to touch the ball. Dribblers are always considered to have voluntarily stepped out of bounds. NCAA 9-4

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
For Situation 3:

In Fed it is an immediate dead ball when the dribbler, even while not touching the ball, steps outof bounds. Rule 9-3.

Even if the player realizes that he stepped on the OOB line, and is then smart enough not to touch the ball again after doing so? Is he still a dribbler then or has he ended or interrupted that dribble? It's not a violation to step OOB after a dribble ends or during an interrupted dribble(as in R4-15-6d), is it?

Enquiring minds need to know!

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
For Situation 3:

In Fed it is an immediate dead ball when the dribbler, even while not touching the ball, steps outof bounds. Rule 9-3.

In NCAA it is not a violation until the player who has volutarily gone out of bounds comes back in bounds and is first to touch the ball. Dribblers are always considered to have voluntarily stepped out of bounds. NCAA 9-4

Wrong.

[Jimgolf]

This is an interesting discussion.

If the dribble has ended, and the player fumbles, the player should be able to recover the ball, but not start a new dribble. If the player has not yet dribbled, the player should be able to recover and start a dribble.

I have seen these plays allowed and I've seen them called violations. (Of course, the fans are always yelling "Walk..Double Dribble", but who cares.) Maybe the NFHS "Traveling and Dribbling" video should be mandatory.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Even if the player realizes that he stepped on the OOB line, and is then smart enough not to touch the ball again after doing so? Is he still a dribbler then or has he ended or interrupted that dribble? It's not a violation to step OOB after a dribble ends or during an interrupted dribble(as in R4-15-6d), is it?

Enquiring minds need to know!

To apply 9-3 there must be player control. The penalty Section of 9-3 says the ball is dead when the violation occurs. The Note in 9-3 say the violation occurs when the dribbler steps on or outside a boundary. Therefore the violation occurs whether or not he subsequently touches the ball or not. (In NCAA if he was smart enough to realize and does not touch the ball afterwards then no violation).

9-3 does not apply if there is no player control. This includes interrupted dribble (4-15-6d) and during a fumble. I assumed you were meant to say there was a fumble after the dribble ended in your last question. There is no player control in either case (4-15-5, and 4-15-4 Note 2).

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by tomegun

Wrong.

I'm not going to let you off that easy. If you think I am wrong give rules citations to back up what you say.

On anything I write I am open to change if I can be convinced another interpretation is correct or I am missing applying a rule that covers the situation better.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

To apply 9-3 there must be player control. The penalty Section of 9-3 says the ball is dead when the violation occurs. The Note in 9-3 say the violation occurs when the dribbler steps on or outside a boundary. Therefore the violation occurs whether or not he subsequently touches the ball or not. (In NCAA if he was smart enough to realize and does not touch the ball afterwards then no violation).

9-3 does not apply if there is no player control. This includes interrupted dribble (4-15-6d) and during a fumble. I assumed you were meant to say there was a fumble after the dribble ended in your last question. There is no player control in either case (4-15-5, and 4-15-4 Note 2).

Exactly and I agree completely with that. However, to apply R9-3, you do need player control, as you stated yourself. If the player gives up that control before touching the ball again, there is no way you can now apply R9-3 without that player touching the ball again immediately. Right? Iow, the violation occurs when the player immediately touches the ball during the course of his dribble after stepping OOB, but there is no violation if he interrupts or abandons that dribble after stepping OOB- because the interrupted or abandoned dribble no longer meets the criteria of R9-3, but now meets the criteria of R4-15-6d instead.

Note that this is a discussion that we've had before, usually with Camron Rust-who agrees completely with you. In real life, the dribbler is not gonna be smart enough to let the ball go after stepping OOB. He's just gonna continue dribbling, and it's gonna be a bang-bang violation call anyway.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Exactly and I agree completely with that. However, to apply R9-3, you do need player control, as you stated yourself. If the player gives up that control before touching the ball again, there is no way you can now apply R9-3 without that player touching the ball again immediately. Right? Iow, the violation occurs when the player immediately touches the ball during the course of his dribble after stepping OOB, but there is no violation if he interrupts or abandons that dribble after stepping OOB- because the interrupted or abandoned dribble no longer meets the criteria of R9-3, but now meets the criteria of R4-15-6d instead.

Note that this is a discussion that we've had before, usually with Camron Rust-who agrees completely with you. In real life, the dribbler is not gonna be smart enough to let the ball go after stepping OOB. He's just gonna continue dribbling, and it's gonna be a bang-bang violation call anyway.

Actually I'm the one that went round and round with you on this issue.

The intent of an interrupted dribble is to not penalize for an ACCIDENTAL loss of control. To me if the ball is not AWAY from the dribbler BEFORE they step OOB it's a violation. It's also a violation when they step OOB and not when they touch it again.

Keep in mind that EVERY dribble is away from the dribbler, so by rule, are we to judge that A1 is not in control when the ball is not touching their hand?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

Actually I'm the one that went round and round with you on this issue.

The intent of an interrupted dribble is to not penalize for an ACCIDENTAL loss of control. To me if the ball is not AWAY from the dribbler BEFORE they step OOB it's a violation. It's also a violation when they step OOB and not when they touch it again.

Keep in mind that EVERY dribble is away from the dribbler, so by rule, are we to judge that A1 is not in control when the ball is not touching their hand? [/B][/QUOTE]You--and Camron and a few others disagreed with me too, if I remember right.

"Accidental" loss of control has nuthin' to do with nuthin'. The definition of an interrupted dribble says that "it momentarily gets away from the dribbler". It also says that there is no player control during that time either. Letting the ball bounce after walking away from it meets that criteria in R4-15-6d. There is no prequisite in the definition of an interrupted dribble that covers "accidental" actions, deliberate actions, or any kind of actions. If it momentarily gets away from the dribbler, then it's an interrupted dribble. Period.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Actually I'm the one that went round and round with you on this issue.

The intent of an interrupted dribble is to not penalize for an ACCIDENTAL loss of control. To me if the ball is not AWAY from the dribbler BEFORE they step OOB it's a violation. It's also a violation when they step OOB and not when they touch it again.

Keep in mind that EVERY dribble is away from the dribbler, so by rule, are we to judge that A1 is not in control when the ball is not touching their hand? [/B]

You--and Camron and a few others disagreed with me too, if I remember right.

"Accidental" loss of control has nuthin' to do with nuthin'. The definition of an interrupted dribble says that "it momentarily gets away from the dribbler". It also says that there is no player control during that time either. Letting the ball bounce after walking away from it meets that criteria in R4-15-6d. There is no prequisite in the definition of an interrupted dribble that covers "accidental" actions, deliberate actions, or any kind of actions. If it momentarily gets away from the dribbler, then it's an interrupted dribble. Period.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not repeating the debate.

IMO the spirit and intent of the rule implies accidental loss of control, but that is not even an issue. If you dribble and the ball is on the way to the floor and you step OOB you violated when you touched OOB. There is not one word in the rule book that requires that the ball be touched again by the dribbler for it to be a violation.

By rule you have violated before you intentionally interrupted your dribble. As I've stated before the dribble needs to be interrupted BEFORE they step OOB, not as a bail-out after they step out.

[cford]

Thanks Daryl for breaking it down. It sounds like this is something that needs to be clarified by the rules committee.

A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player's grasp.

Player has control of the ball. Player jumps in the air and fumbles the ball (player control ends). Player gains control of the ball while in the air (player control begins). This is the same as if a player caught a pass in the air.