Illegal dribble?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

A1 dribbled, ended his dribble, started another dribble, and you don't know what the call is?

Why can't bouncing it off another player, whether that player is a teammate or a defender, be ruled a "pass"? Rule 9-5-3 just sez "touched or been touched by another player". If you bounced a ball off of a teammate, could you dribble again? Rule 9-5-3 says so, doesn't it?

And the definition of a pass in R4-31 specifies "another player" too. It doesn't differentiate between a teammate and an opponent.

[Jimgolf]

So the consensus is that it's a double dribble, or a fumble, or nothing, or something.

Now I've got this rule down cold.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

So the consensus is that it's a double dribble, or a fumble, or nothing, or something.

Now I've got this rule down cold.

Consensus is in the eye of the beholder.

Got it now?

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why can't bouncing it off another player, whether that player is a teammate or a defender, be ruled a "pass"? Rule 9-5-3 just sez "touched or been touched by another player". If you bounced a ball off of a teammate, could you dribble again? Rule 9-5-3 says so, doesn't it?

And the definition of a pass in R4-31 specifies "another player" too. It doesn't differentiate between a teammate and an opponent.

Reprint from pg. one:

The ball that bounced off the defender's foot is merely a live and loose ball last touched by a defender.

We have all seen a bounce pass (to a teammate) off a dribble.

If such a pass hits a defender's hand (legally), or other body part (head, chest, forearm, knee, foot) legally, the dribbler may recover and start a new dribble of the ball. Why? It is legal because the rules do not say it is illegal.

[A player, in control (holding, dribbling), who is trapped by two defenders for 4 seconds, bounces the ball off one of the defenders' foot, or leg, and retrieves the ball may dribble. Yes?]

Thus, the action of the dribbled ball accidentally, or intentionally, legally hitting an opponent's foot during the bounce pass and during the dribble are the same. The ball is loose, no player control, and the only way these actions could be adjudged to differ would be in the mind of the official.

mick

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mick

Reprint from pg. one:

The ball that bounced off the defender's foot is merely a live and loose ball last touched by a defender.

We have all seen a bounce pass (to a teammate) off a dribble.

If such a pass hits a defender's hand (legally), or other body part (head, chest, forearm, knee, foot) legally, the dribbler may recover and start a new dribble of the ball. Why? It is legal because the rules do not say it is illegal.

[A player, in control (holding, dribbling), who is trapped by two defenders for 4 seconds, bounces the ball off one of the defenders' foot, or leg, and retrieves the ball may dribble. Yes?]

Thus, the action of the dribbled ball accidentally, or intentionally, legally hitting an opponent's foot during the bounce pass and during the dribble are the same. The ball is loose, no player control, and the only way these actions could be adjudged to differ would be in the mind of the official.

mick

Just for the record, I agreed with you on page 1 too.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by mick

Reprint from pg. one:

The ball that bounced off the defender's foot is merely a live and loose ball last touched by a defender.

We have all seen a bounce pass (to a teammate) off a dribble.

If such a pass hits a defender's hand (legally), or other body part (head, chest, forearm, knee, foot) legally, the dribbler may recover and start a new dribble of the ball. Why? It is legal because the rules do not say it is illegal.

[A player, in control (holding, dribbling), who is trapped by two defenders for 4 seconds, bounces the ball off one of the defenders' foot, or leg, and retrieves the ball may dribble. Yes?]

Thus, the action of the dribbled ball accidentally, or intentionally, legally hitting an opponent's foot during the bounce pass and during the dribble are the same. The ball is loose, no player control, and the only way these actions could be adjudged to differ would be in the mind of the official.

mick

Mick, if the play is a pass, then I agree with you. But the original play was not a pass. It was a dribble. I believe that JAR is qualified enough to know the difference and when he specifically states it was a dribble, it's clear. After all, it is HIS play.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Mick, if the play is a pass, then I agree with you. But the original play was not a pass. It was a dribble. I believe that JAR is qualified enough to know the difference and when he specifically states it was a dribble, it's clear. After all, it is HIS play.

BktBallRef,
I am glad that you agree to the point of the pass.
Yet my contention is that since the action is the very same, except for the presumed intent of the dribbler, I don't think we are permitted to incorporate our assumption as part of our decision making process.

Perhaps you could help me find another example, other than intentional fouls, where we are allowed to judge intent. If we start using "presumed intent" in rare instances, we are going to be all over the board with the resulting calls.
mick

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by mick

BktBallRef,
Perhaps you could help me find another example, other than intentional fouls, where we are allowed to judge intent. If we start using "presumed intent" in rare instances, we are going to be all over the board with the resulting calls.
mick

mick, I'll be glad to give you an example if you think intent is the issue but I truly don't see how intent has anything to do with it.

A1 drives. A2 is on the bottom box. He leaps in the lane while facing the basket. He's fouled. He returns to the floor without passing or shooting the ball. What was his intent? Shoot? Pass? 2 shots or throw-in?

We make judgments from the time we walk on the floor until the time we leave. In this case, I'm not judging what he intended to do. I'm judging what he did. In JAR's original play, I have to make a judgment (Not really because JAR told me he was dribbling). Was he dribbling or was he shooting? Honestly, I can't believe that you and Woody truly believe that the officials on this board can't judge the difference in a dribble and a pass.


Man, it was a beautiful night for football in the Old North State. Wish it was this gorgeous every Friday night. You shoulda been here.

JAR, why do you have PMs turned off?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

JAR, why do you have PMs turned off?

I don't know how to turn PMs on. I thought that was something women took pills to avoid.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't know how to turn PMs on. I thought that was something women took pills to avoid.

Click on User CP in the upper left hand corner. There, you can setup options for your profile, like private messaging.

Then we can make fun of Woddy privately.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Honestly, I can't believe that you ... truly believe that the officials on this board can't judge the difference in a dribble and a pass.

BktBallRef,
There is no reason to believe that.
If justanotherref said it was a dribble, fine. The dribbler was dribbling. It's a given.

But, you miss my point.

The actions were:

Dribbler bounced ball off defender's foot.
Dribbler recovered the ball with two hands.
Dribbler started dribbling.

With this simple sequence of events, I contend there should be only one result.

You agreed that if the ball was intended to be a pass, then the dribbler may start a new dribble; but you further stated that if the dribbler was merely intending to continue the dribble, then a violation should be called when the dribbler recovered the ball and dribbled.

The interjection of the intention factor, in this case, seems to be an anomaly to other rules. The dribbler's Intention, not to be confused with officials' judgement, should not be construed as the driving force for the determination.

The intention of the player must be ignored. If officials start considering the presumed intentions of a player, then the resulting calls will be all over the map and inconsistency will become commonplace.

For the listed actions, only one result should be warranted. There should be no deviation. The call should be the same ... no ifs, ands, or buts. If you call illegal dribble (or no-call the act) in either case (dribbling, or passing), then make the same call in both, identical, cases. I'll have your back.

*****

The original play could be expanded to legally hit a second player's foot [and (please indulge me) maybe, yet a third player's foot] before the dribbler recovers the ball with both hands and commences dribbling.

At some point, that original dribbler must be allowed to recover and start dribbling again, after being touched by another, or numerous other, player(s).

mick

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by mick

BktBallRef,
You agreed that if the ball was intended to be a pass, then the dribbler may start a new dribble; but you further stated that if the dribbler was merely intending to continue the dribble, then a violation should be called when the dribbler recovered the ball and dribbled.

Sigh.

No mick, I didn't. I told you I couldn't see where intent had anything to do with this play. It's simply a judgment. Was he dribbling or passing? So where you get that I agreed with your intent statements, I have no idea, when I've made it clear that I don't. It's an easy judgment whether it's a dribble or a pass.

5 pages of posts later, the rule is still clear. If the defender bats the dribble with his hands, the dribble is ended, and the player can dribble again if he retains possession. Touching the foot does not end the dribble.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mick

BktBallRef,
Perhaps you could help me find another example, other than intentional fouls, where we are allowed to judge intent.

The player who gets clobbered in mid-air, then manages to throw up a shot on his way down, after the fact. He gets up pantomiming his shooting motion, and is vigorously supported by one whole side of the gym. "C'mon, he was shooting."

IT'S YOUR CALL!

[just another ref]

whole thing, but I remembered the whole story. The play in question occured during a 11-12 year old boys scrimmage. I was coaching one of the teams and calling the game by myself from the center of the floor. Other team point guard dribbled the ball off my players foot. He sprinted all the way across the court and recovered the ball at the sideline with two hands. He started a new dribble and about this time I saw that he had stepped on the sideline. I whistled the play dead and told the other coach (the player's dad) "Out of bounds, and that would have been a double dribble anyway."
He immediately said, like others here, "No! Not if the defense touched it." There was no question of this being called a pass. I told him I thought I was right but would double check the rule. I really don't remember if I checked on it at the time or not, but it has never come up again that I recall until now, and only in discussion this time.

[mick]

Originally Posted by just another ref

whole thing, but I remembered the whole story. The play in question occured during a 11-12 year old boys scrimmage. I was coaching one of the teams and calling the game by myself from the center of the floor. Other team point guard dribbled the ball off my players foot. He sprinted all the way across the court and recovered the ball at the sideline with two hands. He started a new dribble and about this time I saw that he had stepped on the sideline. I whistled the play dead and told the other coach (the player's dad) "Out of bounds, and that would have been a double dribble anyway."
He immediately said, like others here, "No! Not if the defense touched it." There was no question of this being called a pass. I told him I thought I was right but would double check the rule. I really don't remember if I checked on it at the time or not, but it has never come up again that I recall until now, and only in discussion this time.

Well, I think you remembered a good sitch. It is stimulating....
Thanks.
mick