Illegal dribble?

[Nevadaref]

Did anyone read the post that I already made in this thread?
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!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did anyone read the post that I already made in this thread?

Yup.

We think it's wrong.

What's your point?

[Nevadaref]

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

What's your point?

[mick]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

What's your point?

I don't see the fumble relationship either, but then you guys were posting so early in the morning, I'm surprised you could find the monitor.
mick

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

What's your point?

My point is "Detente is lacking".

[just another ref]

I'm sure that I am lacking detente, but I don't speak Italian so I don't really know what that means. I do think that it is significant that several people that I consider very knowledgeable cannot put their finger on a passage which says this is not a violation. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but now I at least feel that this was not a dumb question.

[Camron Rust]

This is an interrupted dribble not because of it deflecting off the dribbler but because of the next part...."or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler".

I do not agree with rainmaker's statement ...

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.

The mere fact that it touches someone else does not end player control. The new dribble is warranted only if it player control itself is lost. The dribble does not end merely by the ball touching an opponent...the opponent must do more than be touched by the ball...they must bat it, grab it, etc. It means absolutely if it brushes the defenders leg as the dribbler goes by such that the dribble is unaffected.

The rule (from an older book) about when a player can dribble again.

A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he or she has lost control because of:

ART. 1 . . . A try for field goal.

ART. 2 . . . A bat by an opponent.

ART. 3 . . . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player.

Taken literally, you could read this to say that a player could not dribble at any point in the game after an interrupted dribble until they once again held the ball and lost control by one of the above actions.

However, by common convention (i.e., in determining whether a bounced ball that goes to a teammate is a pass or a dribble), a ball that goes to another player is assumed to be a pass, even if the intent was otherwise.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is an interrupted dribble not because of it deflecting off the dribbler but because of the next part...."or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler".

I do not agree with rainmaker's statement ...


The mere fact that it touches someone else does not end player control. The new dribble is warranted only if it player control itself is lost. The dribble does not end merely by the ball touching an opponent...the opponent must do more than be touched by the ball...they must bat it, grab it, etc. It means absolutely if it brushes the defenders leg as the dribbler goes by such that the dribble is unaffected.

The rule (from an older book) about when a player can dribble again.

A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he or she has lost control because of:

ART. 1 . . . A try for field goal.

ART. 2 . . . A bat by an opponent.

ART. 3 . . . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player.
Taken literally, you could read this to say that a player could not dribble at any point in the game after an interrupted dribble until they once again held the ball and lost control by one of the above actions.

However, by common convention (i.e., in determining whether a bounced ball that goes to a teammate is a pass or a dribble), a ball that goes to another player is assumed to be a pass, even if the intent was otherwise.

Agreed.

9-5-3 must be different in some of your books than it is in mine. My book reads:

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

Sequence:
Dribble
Dribble ends
Fumble or pass deflected by an opponent
Recovery by A1
Dribble again legally

The rule refers to a dribble that has ended and a pass or fumble is THEN touched by an opponent. A1 can retrieve the ball and dribble again. You can't fumble a ball while dribbling it.

Touching B1's foot does NOT end the dribble. Touching B1's foot does NOT constitue a bat. If someone thinks so, I would really like to read the rule. (I'll be happy to point out the definition of a bat if anyone can't find it. )

Bottom line JAR, if he picks the ball up and ends again, "Double Dribble."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I do think that it is significant that several people that I consider very knowledgeable cannot put their finger on a passage which says this is not a violation.

And, conversely, no one can definitively put their finger on a passage that says it is a violation.

All I can tell you from my own experience is that this has not been called a violation by anyone, as far as I know, since the beginning of time. Iow, the expected call is a "no call", and that is what is generally taught. Note the words "my own experience" though. That's the variable.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And, conversely, no one can definitively put their finger on a passage that says it is a violation.

All I can tell you from my own experience is that this has not been called a violation by anyone, as far as I know, since the beginning of time. Iow, the expected call is a "no call", and that is what is generally taught. Note the words "my own experience" though. That's the variable.

The expected call is a "no call" ?
Agreed.
The Rule book and Case book obviously "no-called" it, too.
mick

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup.

We think it's wrong.

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