Illegal dribble?

[just another ref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

[Nevadaref]

You know, justa makes an interesting point.
Have I been miscalling this play for years? 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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

[mick]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

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 another ref]

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?]

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

[mick]

Quote:

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?]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mick

Quote:
........ if t'ain't no rule agin it, an action is okay.
mick

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mick

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

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

BadNewsRef
It's not.
Just checked.

[mick]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[just another ref]

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

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?