Illegal dribble?

[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."

[just another ref]

Tony agrees with me. My existence is now somehow justified. Thanks to all for your attention to this matter.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Tony agrees with me. My existence is now somehow justified. Thanks to all for your attention to this matter.

So my support for your position way back on page one of this thread did nothing for you? I'm so hurt.

All we can conclude at this time is that if A1's action is judged by the official to be a pass or a fumble (which then touches another player) he may dribble a second time. If whatever he does with the ball isn't a pass or a fumble, then this would result in a double dribble violation.

JR thinks that the original play is a fumble. I don't.
Some others have stated that it qualifies as a pass. I don't think so.

However, the play rainmaker asked about in which A1 is trapped after using his dribble and therefore throws or bounces the ball off an opponent does meet the definition of a pass.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

Yup, that's what 9-5-3 reads in my book too.

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

Your sequence is wrong and self-serving. The fumble touched by an opponent ended the dribble. The dribble did not end before the touching. That's why it's legal for A1 to dribble again. That's why I still disagree.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, that's what 9-5-3 reads in my book too.

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

Your sequence is wrong and self-serving. The fumble touched by an opponent ended the dribble. The dribble did not end before the touching. That's why it's legal for A1 to dribble again. That's why I still disagree.

Self serving? LOL!

Please explain to me how a dribbler can fumble the ball.

Only a player that is holding the ball can fumble.

There is no fumble when a ball is dribbled off the opponent's foot or any other time a ball is being dribbled.

This maybe the worst argument you have ever made on these boards.

[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