Illegal dribble?
 

A1 dribbles, guarded by B1, dribble goes off B1's foot. A1 chases the ball down, picks it up, and starts to dribble again. This is a violation, is it not? The original dribble did not end just because it touched the opponent's foot.
This is to settle a disagreement. As always, I am happy to be corrected if I ever happened to be wrong. :D

You're corrected; you're wrong. The dribble ended when it went off B1. Note that it's a loss of player control also, but not a loss of team control.

See rule 9-5-3 and case book plays 4.15.4SitF and 9.5.3 for the concept. The ball hitting B1 is considered a fumble.

Why?

4-21: Afumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally slips from a players grasp.

Based on this definition, how can you have a fumble during a dribble?

You know, justa makes an interesting point.
Have I been miscalling this play for years? :confused: I always thought the play he describes was legal, but perhaps not.

The dribble deflecting off the opponent's foot isn't a:

1. bat = An opponent bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) the ball. (4-15-4d) So rule 9-5-2 doesn't apply, neither does 4.15.4 Sit F.

2. pass = A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player. (4-31) So rule 9-5-3 and 9.5.3 don't apply.

3. fumble = A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player's grasp. (4-21) A1 didn't have the ball in his grasp. He was dribbling. So rule 9-5-3 still doesn't apply.

Does it fit under the definition of an interrupted dribble which "occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler."

I never thought about this before, but it seems that by a strict reading of the rules in this situation the dribbler may only catch up to the ball and continue his dribble or end it by picking up the ball. If he dribbles a second time that seems to be a violation.

It's late. I'm tired. I'm now quite confused. :(

Well, when you wake up rested, you argue it. I'm not.

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

Is this from the book, mick, or is this your own summary? thanks

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


[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?]




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


<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Well, just another ref, now you know that ain't in the 2005-06 Case book.

But 9-5-3 remains quite clear to most readers, and 4-39-1, -2, -3 is in the book, specifically Article 2 :

• "A game regulation, commonly called a rule, sometimes states or implies that the ball is dead or a foul or a violation is involved. If it does not, it is assumed the ball is live and no foul or violation has occurred to affect the situation."

As I implied, if t'ain't no rule agin it, an action is okay. ;)
mick

yabut...
 

by the letter of the law, there IS a rule agin it. By definition, nothing has happened which ended the dribble. Therefore if the dribbler picks up the ball and starts another, violation. This is a call I remember only once. As I recall, I was uncertain whose foot the ball had hit, the dribbler's or the defender's. Dribbler chased the ball all the way across the court, picked it up and started over. I called the violation. Coach quickly helped me: "No! That hit his (defender's) foot!" I (often mistaken but never in doubt) quickly said, "Doesn't matter, dribble did not end on that." Later we talked about it, I told him I wasn't absolutely sure and would look it up. I did and decided I was right. (what a coincidence) That was probably 5 or 6 years ago and I've never seen this situation before or since, but it seems like something that would happen fairly often.

What if a dribble hit a defender's body part other than the hand or foot?
Would you still call an illegal dribble violation if the dribbler recovered with both hands and started dribbling?

If you call a violation what rule do you use? I just don't see a problem once the opponent has touched the ball.
mick

Maybe it's in the 2000-01 case book right next to the rule about a disqualified player shooting a free throw. :p

I probably have nothing if the opponent touched the ball. But I see it differently if the opponent was touched by the ball. If the dribbler loses control because of his own action, whether that involves the ball bouncing off his own foot, a defender's foot, an official's foot, or a dirt clod on the floor, I see nothing to indicate that his dribble has ended, so I would be more inclined to treat this as an interrupted dribble than a fumble or a just cuz.

BadNewsRef
It's not.
Just checked. :)

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

It says the dribble ended when A1 caught the ball, not when it hit his foot. He may recover the ball, yes, but it does not say he can start another dribble. Are you saying that he can in this situation?

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

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

My point is "<i>Detente</i> is lacking".

I'm sure that I am lacking detente, but I don't speak Italian :D 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.

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.


<DD>The rule (from an older book) about when a player can dribble again.</DD><DD> <DD>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: <DD>ART. 1 . . . A try for field goal. <DD>ART. 2 . . . A bat by an opponent. <DD>ART. 3 . . . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player. </DD>
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.

The ref is part of the floor and would not be part of the things the ball can touch to enable a second dribble.

And, conversely, no one can definitively put their finger on a passage that says it <b>is</b> 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

<DD>
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. :rolleyes: (I'll be happy to point out the definition of a bat if anyone can't find it. :p )

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

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

Camron made a great catch on this. As worded here this is a common basketball myth, I'm amazed when above kiddy ball a player will look at me in disbelief and shock when he restarts his dribble after an opponent merely touches the ball and I blow the whistle. But it happens, and my response is always to smile and say "You are kidding me, right?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
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.




Hmmm.....

Well, I can't find what I thought I'd seen in the past, namely a rule that says that if the ball touches another player, then a new dribble is allowed. So let me get this straight. A1 is dribbling. She bats the ball down, it hits the foot of B1 and bounces away. Okay, now A1 can continue the dribble if she uses only one hand, and only the dribbling action, right? Or she can retrieve the ball with two hands, but she then gets no more dribble, right? But she can't "pick the ball up" and then "continue" the dribble, as described by the OP?

Now what about the play where A1 is holding the ball having already dribbled, and then ended her dribble, and she then bounces it off the back or leg of an opponent and then gets the ball and dribbles? Is this different?

The relevant play is A1 picks up his dribble, B1 comes up & slaps, grabs or in some other way makes contact with the ball without A1 losing control of the ball. The myth, which you support in the way you originally worded your post and again here, is that A1 can now start a new dribble. He cannot.

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 <b>not</b> end before the touching. That's why it's legal for A1 to dribble again. That's why I still disagree.

Tony? Camron? Dan? JAR?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
Now what about the play where A1 is holding the ball having already dribbled, and then ended her dribble, and she then <s>bounces</s> passes it off the back or leg of an opponent and then gets the ball and dribbles? Is this different?

I hope this answers your question.

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. :rolleyes:

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

1) NFHS rule 4-15-5- Interrupted dribble.

2) Give me time. I'll make more. :D

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.

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. :confused:

Consensus is in the eye of the beholder.

Got it now?:D

1) Now you're just being silly and obviously egging this on.

How is an interrupted dribble "the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player's grasp." A player who is dribbling is not grasping the ball. Okay, you got me...you're wrong and you know it. :p

2) LOL! :D

That's almost as funny as saying an interrupted dribble is a fumble. :)

OK, the dribbler was trying to pass the ball off his opponent's foot. :D

Got any rule(s) that can over-rule the direct language of R9-5-3 though? That rule says that it's <b>not</b> an illegal second dribble if the dribbler lost control after a <b>pass</b> touched or was touched by another player. A player is any of the 5 team members of each team who are legally on the floor. The definition of a "pass" also specifies that it has to be at a "player", not a "teammate". Ergo, if the dribbler passes the ball at any player on the floor, and the ball then touches or is touched by that player, the original passer can go get the ball, pick it up and legally dribble.

Rules citation if you think differently.

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<!-- / message -->

That bounce is defined to be a pass. Player control was lost. It touched another player. New dribble OK. A1 does so at the risk of A1 catching the ball.

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

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.

That pretty much sums 'er up.

Your support was very helpful. Without it I probably would have decided early "I'm wrong." BUT, as is often the case here, Tony seemed to have the final word. Once he said I, pardon me, we, were right, the original sit died and the argument skewed off in other directions.

Shazam! That's what I said all along.

Nah

No way

Totally different situation

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

Hope this doesn't decrease the significance of this......
 

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

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?

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!

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

Still don't matter. You still don't have a rules citation that says it is illegal. Rule 9-5 doesn't say one way or another. It's simply not definitively covered in the rules.

I disagree. I believe that it is clearly covered in the current rules and that specifically 9-5 is the rule which says that this is illegal. That rule states that there are ONLY THREE situations in which a player may dribble a second time. Pay special attention to the use of the word UNLESS. If one of those three things didn't happen and the player dribbles a second time, it is a violation. The only thing that we can debate here is whether or not the action constitutes a fumble or pass. We cannot debate whether or not there is a rule to cover this situation. There certainly is.

RULE 9, SECTION 5
ILLEGAL DRIBBLE
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:
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.
PENALTY: (Section 5) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation.

I disagree with your disagree.

This thread is now officially "disagreeable".

Agreed.

This is one of those situations where a veteran poster starts out with the wrong interp, is proved wrong but won't back down. We've all done it. This time, it's JR and mick's turn. ;)

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:





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

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.

What if it touches a couple of other players too while the ball is loose? Still a dribble?

You never did answer that question of Mick's.

Okay.
Below is where I got confused.
mick











<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
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 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. :)














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

mick, I have no idea what it confuses you.

If I end my dribble, then pass the ball and it hits any part of your body, I can retrieve it and then dribble, shoot, or pass. (9-5-3)

If I dribble the ball and you bat it away with your hands, the dribble has ended and I can retrieve it and then dribble, shoot, or pass. (4-14-4d, 9-5-2)

If I dribble the ball and you touch it with any part of your body other than your hands, the dribble has not ended. I can retrieve it and continue to dribble, shoot, or pass. But I cannot pick the ball up and then begin to dribble again because I ended the dribble. (4-15-4 a through e)

So......you're saying that even though your dribble might have touched 9 other players before you were able to touch it again, and the ball mighta gone from under your basket to under your opponent's basket, that whole sequence is still one continuous <b>dribble</b>?

Somehow, I don't think that I'm gonna buy that one.

JR, if you have 9 defenders on the floor, then you have more issues than just not being able to understand this play.

Look up the term interrupted dribble in the rule book. Maybe that'll help you.

JR,
It seems if the ball hits more than one player in the foot, the dribble still hasn't ended and one should just ignore it and worry about something else. :cool:
mixk

How could an "interrupted dribble" be relevant to the question?:confused: The definition of an interrupted dribble says that the ball is loose after deflecting off the <b>dribbler</b>, <b>not</b> another <b>player</b>. There's no mention anywhere in the definition of an interrupted dribble about the ball going off another player. And, yes, I meant "player" and not "defender", both here and in the original question; "player" meaning any member of both teams on the court.

So again.....could you please answer my question?

If the dribbler, underneath his own basket, dribbled the ball off the foot of a defender or teammate beside him, and the ball then touched or was touched- but not controlled- by the 8 other <b>players</b> on the court, and the ball then ended up under the opponent's basket before the dribbler could catch up to it, do you also consider that as one continuous dribble?

C'mon Woddy, you're better than that. :(

An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball
a) is loose after deflecting off the dribbler
b) or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler.

A dribble does NOT have to deflect off the dribbler to be an interrupted dribble.

Until another player gains control of the ball or the ball is dead, it continues to be an interrupted dribble and Team A continues to have team control. You know that. That's not even close to being a reasonable argument. :(

Naw, I ain't better than that. I still don't think that you've got rules backing to make that illegal dribble call.

lI'll agree that there's still team control on the loose ball, but I contend that player control is also lost and a <b>new</b> player control is established if the original dribbler gets the loose ball after it touches other players. Not the <b>same</b> player control. I sureasheck also can't agree that that play meets the definition of an interrupted dribble. The definition of an interrupted dribble mentions it going off the dribbler <b>only</b> or <b>momentarily</b> getting away from the dribbler <b>only</b>. You're trying to add other criteria to that definition. And what criteria? If it can go off one other player than the dribbler and still be an interrupted dribble, why can't it go off 9 other players and move 80' down court and still be an interrupted dribble? There's no rules language anywhere differentiating between the two situations, is there?

The problem with this play is that it's simply not covered definitively, rules-wise.

Btw, Woddy? :D

Never claimed to be a great typist, Wooey. :)

Define momentariliy. The point is that an interruted dribble can occur through just about any action when the dribbler doesn't have control (of the dribble). Off the opponents foot is one such case. Now, when it ceases to be an interrupted dribble may not be clear, but it is, at first, an interrupted dribble. It is most definitely NOT a fumbe, however.

Camron,
I don't sight that case.
Can you cite it ?
mick

Where in the rules may I find something that definitively says that an interrupted dribble may go off another player's foot? I can't find any language like that in the rule books that I own- and I've got the new ones too. The rule books that I've got only mention an interrupted dribble going off the dribbler, or the dribbler momentarily losing it.

Now, <b>you</b> define "momentarily" if you wanna use the interrupted dribble rule. Is it right away, 10 seconds, 34 seconds, etc.? Does "momentarily" cover 9 other players touching the ball and the ball moving 80 feet away from where the dribbler lost it?

Somehow, I really don't think I'm gonna buy that one either, Camron.:)

If <b>you</b> can't define when it ceases to be an interrupted dribble, then howintheheck can you use the same parameters and rule to back up your interpretation of that rule to say that it's <b>always</b> a violation if the dribbler goes and grabs the loose ball and dribbles again?

If it isn't a fumble and it isn't an interrupted dribble, then what the heck is it? And when you do figure that out, let me know where I can find something in the rule book that definitively covers the situation that we're discussing.

9-5 is still the cornerstone of the whole thing. Nothing in the book says the dribble has ended, therefore regardless of time consumed and number of people touched, the dribble is still alive.

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. :p

And there's nothing in the book that says the dribble hasn't ended either. Rule 9-5 can't be the cornerstone if it doesn't cover the situation that we're discussing. It's that simple.

My rulebook doesn't show anything in R9-5 to definitively back up what you're alleging.

I found it yesterday. Fire at will.

Woody, Woody, Woody....c'mon buddy, you know better than that.

4-15-4 tells us that a dribble ends when:
The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.
The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.
The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.
An opponent bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) the ball.
The ball becomes dead.

None of those things happened in this play. We don't need a rule that tells us when it DOESN'T end. You know that.

Sooooooo.......you really believe that it's still a dribble if the ball hits someone's foot, then hits 8 other different players on the floor- some of 'em 2 or 3 times- and ends up 80 feet away from where the dribbler last touched it?

That dribble never ended?

Tony, Tony, Tony......you know that I ain't gonna buy that crock of poo-poo.:)

Btw, what happened to Woddy?:confused:

Woody knows the above question is a crock of poo poo. Woody knows the rule and doesn't make Rutlike arguments. Woddy evidently doesn't comprehend the rule. I thought I was addressing Woody but I guess I'll address Woddy again. :cool:



Hey Woddy, whether you like it or not, in you far out, theoretical scenario, the dribble does not end. The rule is what it is. You can make up scenarios and say "because the ball touched X number of players, it's no longer a dribble," but it's not true. If someone made such an argument to you, you'd tell them "That's bull$h!t."

Now, rather than trying to confuse the issue with some stupid, far out scenario, let's stick to the original one. The dribble goes off one defender's foot. The rule tells us that this is NOT one of the ways that a dribble ends. You know it, I know it, and Woody knows it.

So continue to argue this if you like. But you know you're wrong about the play and the rule, and you just won't admit it. Hell, if I had been so adamant and so wrong for 6 pages, I wouldn't change horses now either. :D

Now, I'm done. I have to go make fun of Woddy with JAR via PM. :p

Well, if either you or JAR can ever come up with a rule that's actually relevant to the original situation, be sure and let us know. You haven't come up with a definitive one yet.

Good luck with that......

4-15-4 tells us that a dribble ends when:
The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.
The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.
The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.
An opponent bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) the ball.
The ball becomes dead.

JR,
Are you having trouble reading?

Can't you see what they are saying? If the dribbler bounces the ball to defender and the defender passes the ball to a teammate, but the dribbler steals it back, the dribbler cannot dribble because the dribble never ended :

1. because the dribbler did not catch or cause the ball to come to rest;
2. because the dribbler did not palm or carry;
3. because the defender did not bat the ball.

Does that make it more clear? Yikes !!! :)
mick

I got one
 

Player A1 fouls out, goes to the bench, and removes his jersey. He is promptly given a technical foul. He is upset:mad: and leaves the gym, but before doing so climbs on a chair and ties his jersey securely across his opponents' basket. Ruling: Removal of the jersey was illegal and properly penalized, but opponents shots are now allowed to bounce off because tying the jersey on the rim is not definitively prohibited by rule.:D

I'm betting that there will be a new case play or interp from the NFHS regarding this. Any takers? :D

Well, over the last few years I have noticed that case plays have shown up several times after we have had lengthy rules discussions here about something that is not definitively covered. Coincidence? I think not. Somehow, I think that our discussions are getting back to someone close to the FED rule committee.

Until then though, with regards to this particular play, I think that truly wise officials will follow the tried-and-true maxim that has guided countless officials over the years in their pursuit of greatness-- <i><b>"What would Woddy do?"</b></i>