The Official Forum - Tricky b/c situation

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Tricky b/c situation (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/23976-tricky-b-c-situation.html)

Re: Re: BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I just don't believe that the NFHS ever intended what we call the three points rule to apply during an interrupted dribble. I think that it was meant to apply to situations in which there is player control, and player control doesn't exist during an interrupted dribble. Right now, I'm on the side of calling backcourt violations in parts 1 and 3, but I'm far from sure that I'm right.

As you many times do NV, you're posting what you think without any backing from the Fed. There's no indication that the Fed wants us to rule any differently when there's an interrupted dribble.

BktBallRef, you're doing exactly the same thing. There is just as much indication that that the interrupted dribble is different as it is the same.

The mere fact that they call it an "interrupted" dribble suggests that A1 is not the same.

We have the ruling that says A1 does not have player control during an interrupted dribble. Dribbling also implies player control which, in reverse, says that if a player does not have control, they can't be dribbling. If they are not dribbling, they don't get the benefit if the 3-points rule.

Re: Re: Re: BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I just don't believe that the NFHS ever intended what we call the three points rule to apply during an interrupted dribble. I think that it was meant to apply to situations in which there is player control, and player control doesn't exist during an interrupted dribble. Right now, I'm on the side of calling backcourt violations in parts 1 and 3, but I'm far from sure that I'm right.

As you many times do NV, you're posting what you think without any backing from the Fed. There's no indication that the Fed wants us to rule any differently when there's an interrupted dribble.

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
"And those rules say that an interrupted dribble doesn't mean the dribble has ended"

Say it?

Or is it that the 'rules' don't say that an interrupted dribble means the dribble has ended?

Not the same thing in a rules based system of moderate complexity.

Six of one, half dozen of the other, Jeff.

In logic, not in law.

WTF are you talking about? :confused:

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

We have the ruling that says A1 does not have player control during an interrupted dribble. Dribbling also implies player control which, in reverse, says that if a player does not have control, they can't be dribbling. If they are not dribbling, they don't get the benefit if the 3-points rule.

That's the way I have always understood it to be. You have neatly stated the pith of the debate. Let's get the NFHS to answer that.

Re: Re: Re: BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I just don't believe that the NFHS ever intended what we call the three points rule to apply during an interrupted dribble. I think that it was meant to apply to situations in which there is player control, and player control doesn't exist during an interrupted dribble. Right now, I'm on the side of calling backcourt violations in parts 1 and 3, but I'm far from sure that I'm right.

As you many times do NV, you're posting what you think without any backing from the Fed. There's no indication that the Fed wants us to rule any differently when there's an interrupted dribble.

BktBallRef, you're doing exactly the same thing. There is just as much indication that that the interrupted dribble is different as it is the same.

The mere fact that they call it an "interrupted" dribble suggests that A1 is not the same.

We have the ruling that says A1 does not have player control during an interrupted dribble. Dribbling also implies player control which, in reverse, says that if a player does not have control, they can't be dribbling. If they are not dribbling, they don't get the benefit if the 3-points rule.

Not true. I'm basing my interpretation on the rules that we have. NVRef is basing his interp on what he thinks the Fed meant for us to do (something that he's done before, even when faced with rule references). He's cited no rule to support his stand, while I have supplied cites that say an inteterrupted dribble does not cause the dribble to end and that a player who is dribbling doesn't attain FC status until all three points are in the FC.

There's no "suggests" to it. The rules are clear. What you guys are proposing is contrary to both those rules.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
/B]

You have neatly stated the pith of the debate. [/QUOTE]And a pithy debate it is too.....

Re: Re: Re: Re: BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I just don't believe that the NFHS ever intended what we call the three points rule to apply during an interrupted dribble. I think that it was meant to apply to situations in which there is player control, and player control doesn't exist during an interrupted dribble. Right now, I'm on the side of calling backcourt violations in parts 1 and 3, but I'm far from sure that I'm right.

As you many times do NV, you're posting what you think without any backing from the Fed. There's no indication that the Fed wants us to rule any differently when there's an interrupted dribble.

BktBallRef, you're doing exactly the same thing. There is just as much indication that that the interrupted dribble is different as it is the same.

The mere fact that they call it an "interrupted" dribble suggests that A1 is not the same.

We have the ruling that says A1 does not have player control during an interrupted dribble. Dribbling also implies player control which, in reverse, says that if a player does not have control, they can't be dribbling. If they are not dribbling, they don't get the benefit if the 3-points rule.

Not true.

NVRef is basing his interp on what he thinks the Fed meant for us to do (something that he's done before, even when faced with rule references).

As am I.

I (and Nevada) basing my interpretation on the rules that we have. He just happened to add a "belief" to the discussion to add understanding, not a ruling.

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

He's cited no rule to support his stand, while I have supplied cites that say an inteterrupted dribble does not cause the dribble to end and that a player who is dribbling doesn't attain FC status until all three points are in the FC.

There's no "suggests" to it. The rules are clear. What you guys are proposing is contrary to both those rules.

Hardly. We're both using rules too...not a quote (so far) but a paraphrase...just ones that you choose to ignore because they don't support your argument. Now for quotes (empahsis mine)...

From 04-05:

Rule 15-1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats....

Rule 4-15-5: There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

Rule 4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. There is no player control...during an interrupted dribble.

So, right there, we have rules that say if a player is dribbling, they have player control and that there is no player control on an interupted dribbler. Putting them together we get that a player is not dribbling during an interrupted dribble. If they were, they'd have player control. Thus, the 3-points exception is also interrupted with the interruption.

It's a lame argument but feel free to call it as you believe.

I'm done.

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
It's a lame argument but feel free to call it as you believe.

I'm done.

It makes more sense than yours...to claim that something is in progress when it it interrupted.

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
It's a lame argument but feel free to call it as you believe.

I'm done.

It makes more sense than yours...to claim that something is in progress when it it interrupted.

Curiously, the same can be said of an everyday human activity . . .

You could stop grousing at each other an direct your frustration at the less-than-competent rules makers.

Vote for me. I'll fix the whole thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
It's a lame argument but feel free to call it as you believe.

I'm done.

It makes more sense than yours...to claim that something is in progress when it it interrupted.

Curiously, the same can be said of an everyday human activity . . .

You could stop grousing at each other an direct your frustration at the less-than-competent rules makers.

Vote for me. I'll fix the whole thing.

Vote for you? I've seen some of your attempts at rule rewrites!!! Not sure if they're an improvment or not. ;)