I saw a game film the other day and a play caught my attention. Thought it might be worth sharing here.

1. Team B scores. A1 quickly takes the ball OOB and makes a throw-in pass to A2 who is standing in the backcourt at the FT line extended near the sideline. A2 catches the pass, but in attempting to turn upcourt and start a dribble bounces the ball off his knee. The ball goes forward in a path parallel with the near sideline, bouncing 3 or 4 times on the floor. The final bounce is just in the frontcourt. A2 chases after the ball and is the first player to reach it. When A2 first makes contact with the ball both of his feet are in the backcourt and he is reaching forward in to the frontcourt. His first touch consists of pushing the ball to the floor with one hand to continue his dribble.
Violation or not and why?




2. Same play, but in talking with a friend, it became clear that changing only one aspect of the situation was instructive. A2 does not catch the throw-in pass from A1. The ball touches his hands, but slips between them and hits him in the chest, then drops down and deflects off his knee. The rest of the play is exactly the same.

Violation or not and why?

I know, I know.....

But I'll wait.

Good questions, Nevada.

Did he start a dribble or not?

1. No violation. Started the dribble in the b/c, continued it when the ball was in the f/c but the other 2 points required for the dribbler were still in b/c.

2. B/C violation. Ball was muffed and gained f/c status when it touched the f/c and then was touched by Team A in its b/c.

So does that mean that he never controlled it? :confused:

What was I thinking using that word anyway! I should have said fumbled, I guess I just prefer muff!

At what point do you think team control was established?

Good point, I think I would like to change my No. 2 answer. Thanx for bringing that to my attention.

Remember #1 is a play that I actually saw happen. The player pushed the ball towards the floor with the clear intent of that being a dribble, but instead of the ball going straight to the floor it hit his knee on the way down and bounced away.

Adding a part 3
 

3. Same play as #1, but instead of A2 being the first player to reach the ball, A3 is the first to get there. His positioning and actions once he reaches that spot are exactly the same as A2's were in play #1.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 1st, 2006 at 01:23 PM]

#1- No violation. A1 started a dribble, which was interrupted. The rule states a dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times. The fact that the ball hit his knee prior to hitting the floor is of no consequence. it's still a dribble. Since he continued the dribble when he touched the ball in the FC, it's not a violation.

#2- No violation. No team control.

#3- Violation. A1 is not covered by the "3 points" rule as the ball had FC status when he started his dribble.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Dec 31st, 2005 at 06:44 PM]

I agree with Tony.

I agree with Bob.

Increasing that post count again?
 

Shut up!

Nevadaref says:

"Same play as #1, but instead of A1 being the first player to reach the ball, A3 is the first to get there. His positioning and actions once he reaches that spot are exactly the same as A1's were in play #1."

Nevada, do you mean A2? All A1 does in question #1 is throw the ball in.

If that's the case, sure, #3 is the functional equivalent of BktBallRef's b/c quiz question in which the player is holding the ball straddling the line, drops it in the front court, and picks it up, is it not?

Yes, I meant A2. Thanks. I went back and corrected that.

My answers are:
1. Backcourt violation
2. No violation (no team control when the ball had fc status) Strangely, there shouldn't even be a 10-second count on this play until A2 catches up to the ball and starts dribbling it!
3. Backcourt violation


I noticed that my answer to #1 differs from the others who have posted so far. Therefore, I'll give a brief summary of my reasoning.

The ruling depends upon whether the ball even gained frontcourt status. I believe that it clearly did. Why? An interrupted dribble is not the same as a dribble. During an interrupted dribble there is no player control.
I agree that A2 started a dribble, but when the ball deflected off his knee and bounced away it became an interuppted dribble. When the ball bounced on the floor in the frontcourt without an player in control, only team control existed at this time, it gained frontcourt status. Since A2's feet were in the backcourt when he first touches the ball again, the status of the ball changes to backcourt. That's a violation.

In short, the three points concept doesn't protect A2 here because this was not a dribble it was an interrupted dribble.

I came up with part 3 as a litmus test of this concept. I believe that it doesn't matter whether the same player is the first to get there or a teammate. It's still a violation because there's no denying that the ball did in fact gain frontcourt status.

Sorry but you're wrong. Just because there's an interrupted dribble, it doesn't mean the dribble ended. In this case, nothing happened that ended A2's dribble.

The dribble ends when:
a. The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.
b. The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.
c. The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.
d. An opponent bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) the ball.
e. The ball becomes dead.

Since A2's dribble never ended, he can legally continue his dribble. No BC violation.

TH,
I see your point, but I'm not sure that I agree with it. You are saying that the interrupted dribble is still part of the original dribble since it has not yet ended, and that is why the player can continue his dribble when he catches up to the ball. Therefore, since this is all part of one dribble and the player's feet never entered the frontcourt, the ball never attained frontcourt status.

Whenever I disagree with you, Bob, or JR, I am aware that I have to carefully consider my position. In this case, I am on the opposite side from all three of you! That is definitely dangerous ground to be on. However, I'm still not convinced that my understanding of this situation is incorrect.

Here are the rules which give me concern about ruling this not to be a violation:

4-4-3 . . . A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

4-4-6 . . . <font color = red>During a dribble</font> from backcourt to frontcourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the court entirely in the frontcourt.

4-15-1 . . . A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

4-15-5 . . . An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

I'm particularly concerned with 4-4-6 not including the words "or interrupted dribble."
For me whether this play is a violation or not hinges on the status of the ball during the interrupted dribble.

Therefore, could you clarify a few things for me?
1. Is an interrupted dribble considered part of a player's dribble even though there is no player control?
2. When the ball bounces in the frontcourt during the interrupted dribble does it obtain frontcourt status?
3. Why specifically do you rule differently for part 3? When does the ball obtain frontcourt status during this play?

1. Yes. It's an interrupted dribble, not an ended dribble.
2. Not as far as the dribbler is concerned. If A2 grabs the ball instead of continuing the dribble, you have a violation. But he doesn't. He continues dribbling. The rule says there's no FC status until all three points are across on the dribble.
3. Because A3 is NOT the dribbler. When A3 touches the ball, it has FC status and he's in the BC, so it's a violation. The rule doesn't allow A3 to start a dribble. It only allows A2 to continue the original dribble.

Well here's the problem. I've been considering an interrupted dribble as not part of the original dribble because there is no player control during that time. Therefore, I wouldn't have applied the exception for during the dribble to the status of the ball on this play. It seems that I have been misunderstanding that concept.

This would be a great scenario for NFHS to issue an interp or new case book play.

The best discussion I've ever heard on here.
 

This is the best discussion I've ever heard here. A tantalizing, undecidable point under the current garble of rules.

I originally was thinking this would be a violation but you sure have me thinking...

What if A2 never again touched the ball? What happens to the 10 count? If another player touches the ball, it wasn't a dribble after all and was in the frontcourt all along.

Regarding your statement about A2 grabbing the ball vs continuing the dribbler. Why would it matter. The dribble still hasn't ended until he grabs it....it seems as if both would have the same conclusion.

Good questions. Perhaps we need a part 4.

To be consistent, I think that TH has to change his answer about A2 grabbing the ball.

The 10-second question is really instructive. I don't believe that whether the count continues or ceases can depend upon which player is the next to contact the ball. That's absurd. As Camron asked what if no player comes and touches the ball? Do we have a count or not? Either the ball has frontcourt status or it doesn't. I'm now also of the opinion that TH should reconsider his ruling for A3 coming over and being the first to touch.

For me, I'm still mulling over how action that takes place while a dribble is INTERRUPTED could be deemed to take place DURING the dribble. I'm really struggling with that. Is it all one big dribble or not?

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.

That's a consideration. I'll have to study that one but I can see that being legal.

The play is unusual, no doubt about it. But all we have is the rules as they're written. And those rules say that an interrupted dribble doesn't mean the dribble has ended and a dribbler and the ball is not in the FC until all three points are in..

Is it all one big dribble or not?
 

It is eventually. Child is the father of the man.

BktBallRef
 

"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.

Re: BktBallRef
 

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.

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

Hmm.. try this play. A1 is dribbling from BC to FC. In order, the following happens:

1) A1's left foot hits the floor in the FC. (one "point")
2) The ball hits the floor in the FC. (two "points")
3) The ball bounces up off the floor and hits A1's left knee. (interrupted dribble)
4) The ball bounces to the BC.
5) A1 moves entirely to the BC and recovers the ball.

BC violation? I think not.

To help answer the question of "does it matter who touches the ball", apply the case where A1 (having dribbled) passes the ball to A2 who isn't looking, and A1 runs and recovers the ball. This becomes a dribble (and a violation) when A1 touches the ball.

Change the play slightly so A1 is standing in the BC and hasn't dribbled. He passes to A2 and the ball reaches the FC. A1, standing in the BC, recovers the ball. From the case play referenced above, we know it's a dribble. Thus, it isn't a BC violation.

I don't believe this is a very instructive play as far as shedding any light on the original play. The above is obviously not a backcourt violation as the ball never touched the frontcourt during the interrupted dribble. It only touched there during the dribble. During the interrupted dribble the ball hit a player who has backcourt status due to his having one foot in the backcourt. So the ball has backcourt status the entire play.

If we were to alter this play so that it becomes:
4. The ball now bounces on the floor in the frontcourt and then goes into the backcourt without touching any player. 5. After the ball has bounced in the backcourt, A1 moves entirely to the BC and recovers the ball.

I have a backcourt violation here. I'd bet that Tony doesn't.


This isn't applicable either. In play #1 we don't have any player making a second dribble or throwing a pass which becomes a dribble by definition. We have an interrupted dribble and everyone agrees upon that. Double dribble violations simply don't enter into play.

I agree. You give a play that is clearly a dribble by definition and an NFHS interpretation. We need a play that is an interrupted dribble to enhance the discussion.

Re: Re: BktBallRef
 

In logic, not in law.

Re: Re: BktBallRef
 

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
 

WTF are you talking about? :confused:

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
 

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.

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: BktBallRef
 

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.

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 <FONT COLOR=RED>a player in control</FONT> who bats....

Rule 4-15-5: <FONT COLOR=RED>There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.</FONT>

Rule 4-12-1: A <FONT COLOR=RED>player is in control</FONT> of the ball when he/she is holding or <FONT COLOR=RED>dribbling</FONT> 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.

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. ;)