That's your wording, not the rule book's. If it touches anyone else, opponent, ref, teammate, at any body part, player control is lost, the dribble is gone and the former dribbler is entitled to a new dribble.

You may ask why more players don't dribble off opponent's foot as a matter of strategy to gain a new dribble. Well, I think it's more because it's extremely difficult. I can't imagine even the best player pulling it off very often.

This is what I am asking for. Where is this in the rule book? A dribble does not end just because player control ends. (interrupted dribble) As far as the opponent, 4-15-4 c. states that the dribble ends when An opponent bats (intentionallystrikes the ball with the hand(s)) the ball.
This insinuates to me that the ball touching another part of the body does not end the dribble, with the exception of a kicking violation, which of course causes the ball to become dead.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by mick
See 4.15.4 Sit.D(c). It clearly states dribble has ended in the case of the dribbler's own foot, but that the ball may be recovered.

No mention of anyone elses foot implies no violation.
mick
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Of course not.
4.15.4 SitD(c) Ruling shows and states the dribble has ended.

Yup, doing so is interpreted as a fumble under rule 9-5-3. JAR is interpreting 9-5-3 differently than anyone else that I've ever met.

If you continue to ignore the "unless..." part of 9-5-3 about "been touched by, another player"..., then on your floor, when A1 makes a pass directly to an opponent, where the opponent did not specifically bat the ball, then you would still have A1 dribbling.

Some things a person must do alone.

finis.
mick

A dribble can end and the player can't legally dribble again, or it can end, and the player CAN legally dribble again, depending.

When a player has been dribbling and then touches the ball with both hands, the dribble ends, and she doesn't get another dribble. But if she has been dribbling and then an opponent strikes the ball with the hand, now the dribbler gets another dribble. She can use two hands to recover the ball, and then start another dribble.

As far as the rule about player control when it touches another person, I'm not quickly coming up with the reference I want, and I'm gonna have to do some research. I'll get back to you about this.

4-12-1

After touching another player, the player, previously in control, is neither holding, nor dribbling.

Mick, this cite doesn't do it for me. 1)your wording doesn't refer to the ball and sounds as though we're talking about player-to-player body contact. I know that's not what you meant, but I'm just channelling my old English-teaching grandmother who was very picky about referents and so on.

2) the wording in the rule book clearly doesn't say this. It also doesn't say it's not true. It's just not there. I don't have time right now to plow around and find a better reference, but I"ll work on it.

Rule 4-15-4 (2005-06 I don't have the new ones yet, if they're out) lists ways a dribble can end. But the list isn't all inclusive, is it? For example, it lists that the dribble ends when...the dribbler catches the ball or it comes to rest in the hand...the dribbler palms / carries the ball...the dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with two hands...the opponent bats the ball...and the ball becomes dead.

What if A1 is standing still and dribblling the ball...A2 walks towards A1 and A1 lets the ball bounce as A1 walks away. A2 then grabs the ball and dribbles, passes or shoots. The dribble by A1 ended, correct? But A1 did not do anything listed in the rule for how a dribble ends.

When I'm reffing and the ball hits a defender, intentional or not, I have the dribble as ended and the dribbler can recover and dribble again.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by mick
4-12-1

After touching another player, the player, previously in control, is neither holding, nor dribbling.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Jewel,
My apology for being obtuse.

The point I attempted to make was that player control involves holding/dribbling the ball. and if the ball has touched another player, then the original player was no longer holding/dribbling and thus no longer in control.
mick

1) No need to apologize. Try the Pritkin Diet. Supposed to make you concave instead.

2) Yup, still team control but no player control because the player cannot immediately dribble. And you can't call it an "interrupted dribble" either because that definition(4-15-5) just mentions the ball going off the dribbler, not another player.

Did anyone read the post that I already made in this thread? :confused:
I cited the relevant rules therein.

This seems ridiculous, but according to the rules AS WRITTEN, the play described in the original post is a double dribble violation. The NFHS needs to fix this! It seems to be a gap in the current rules. I have never called this a violation before because I have never closely examined the legality of the play.

Which body part of the defender the dribble strikes definitely matters as only a bat WITH THE HAND ends the dribble and permits a new one by the original dribbler. Why? Because that's what the rules book specifies.

9-5-3, which Mick and JR are using to justify the legality of the play, only applies to a PASS or a FUMBLE. It says so right there in black and white. In this situation the ball certainly is NOT passed, and it doesn't seem to meet the rules book definition of a fumble either. Therefore, I don't believe that this rule is applicable.

Rainmaker,
Keep searching, if you find anything in addition to what I have already posted, please let us know!

Yup.

We think it's wrong.

What's your point?:confused:

And I think that you're wrong that this play meets the definition of a fumble.

What's your point? :)

Oh, my !
 

Well, the rule has read the same for as long as I remember, but some officials now want to re-think this thing.
I know they have read the book, and admittedly never called a violation for the original case, except seemingly one time.
I wonder how the rule changed using the same words.
mick