Case play 7.1.1 is not correct

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

To support M&M,

Here is the interrupted dribble rule:

4-15-5 "An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble."

It appears to me, the Fed is considering Case 7.1.1D to be an interrupted dribble which makes the case book correct as written. The ball has momentarily gotten away from the dribbler. If not, he would still be holding the ball when he goes OB.

KajunRef and the M'er got it right. The toss to save the ball is the start of an interrupted dribble. That's where you got confused imo, John.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JTRICE

First off...... I want to sincerely and emphatically apologize if I offended any official in any way with this question. This is NOT what I meant to do. I (thought) I was offering a situation to ponder to help us all with our officiating (and our test scores.)

Situation 7.1.1 Situation D part C....... states in its answer: "Illegal in (c) as the controlled toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes the start of a dribble....." Part C then goes on to explain (as we all know) how A1 cannot start another dribble.

The important part of this is that the case book says " ...the controlled toss of the ball...".

So.... this is NOT an interrupted dribble.

Finally, as we know, also, and it is stated on Page 56 of the Rule Book...Section 3 Article 2 NOTE: "The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds."

For what it is worth...... (and I admit it may not be worth much ) the Rules Committee has been notified of this information and I would bet we will see that case changed in next year's book.

Sorry John but you and your group are wrong. It is an interrupted dribble.

You emphasized " ...the controlled toss of the ball...". Every start of every dribble is a controlled toss or bat of the ball. If it was uncontrolled, it would be a fumble. And we know that a fumble is not a dribble and a dribble is not a fumble.

The dribble begins with control. Once there is no longer player control, then the dribble is interrupted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sorry John but you and your group are wrong. It is an interrupted dribble.

You emphasized " ...the controlled toss of the ball...". Every start of every dribble is a controlled toss or bat of the ball. If it was uncontrolled, it would be a fumble. And we know that a fumble is not a dribble and a dribble is not a fumble.

The dribble gegins with control. Once there is no longer player control, then the dribble is interrupted.

And...

If it were not a interrupted dribble, it would be a violation the instant the player touched OOB, not when he returned and touched the ball.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And...

If it were not a interrupted dribble, it would be a violation the instant the player touched OOB, not when he returned and touched the ball.

Correct.

PS - I hate that damn, "Your message is too short," dialog box. Would somebody PLEASE get rid of it!!!!!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Correct.

PS - I hate that damn, "Your message is too short," dialog box. Would somebody PLEASE get rid of it!!!!!

Why?

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by JTRICE

I had a very interesting conversation at my basketball meeting last night. It turns out that case play 7.1.1 part (a) and (b) are not correct as written. Part (c) IS correct. It reads as follows:

A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning inbounds: (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball ...RULING: Legal in (a) and (b).

Think about this and see if you can figure out why this is NOT right.

You're going to have an even more interesting conversation next time when you tell your other officials that you were all incorrect in thinking that the case play was incorrect.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Where can I find the rule that states the ball has to bounce a second time in order for it to be interrupted?

Case as cited

Originally Posted by JTRICE

A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning inbounds: (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball ...RULING: Legal in (a) and (b).

4-15-5 "An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble."

Has the ball "deflected off the dribbler"? No, I think that's been established fairly well. A1 has caught the ball and tossed it back to the court.

Has the ball "momentarily gotten away from the dribbler"? If the ball has only bounced once, then how has it gotten away from the dribbler? No.

Think about it. If we agree that the player has started a dribble by throwing the ball to the floor, and the player has resumed the dribble after the ball has only bounced once, then where is the interruption?

[Nevadaref]

It occurred while the player was momentarily out of bounds.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It occurred while the player was momentarily out of bounds.

So you're saying that if a player steps out of bounds during a dribble then it's an interrupted dribble?

[Nevadaref]

Not if that player is in control.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Has the ball "momentarily gotten away from the dribbler"? If the ball has only bounced once, then how has it gotten away from the dribbler? No.

So you don't have a rule / case play / interpretation that backs it up? That's what I thought.

If I save the ball on the sideline, throw it 10 feet into the air and I'm then able to retrieve it in the lane after it's bounced one time, you don't think that's an interrupted dribble?

Without regard to this play, I think most will agree that if he can immediately (within less than 1 second), grab the ball and end the dribble, then the ball has "momentarily gotten away from the dribbler."

No disrespect intended, as I've always had good discussions with you, and with John going back to years ago on McGriff, but I think I'll trust the folks who wrote the case play. That's obviously the way they define an interrupted dribble and I believe they are the folks we should be listening to.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Sometimes we get so caught up in the LETTER of the rule that we forget to look at the SPIRIT of the rule.

When the Fed inserted the note to 9-3, "The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds." it seems to me that the Fed was trying to say, if you are dribbling and step out of bounds, then you're out of bounds.

I don't think they were trying to say, that if you are trying to save the ball from going out of bounds, catch the ball, save it from going OB, fall OB, establish yourself back IB, then dribble the ball, that you have committed a violation.

How do I know what they were thinking...Case 7.1.1D

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

Sometimes we get so caught up in the LETTER of the rule that we forget to look at the SPIRIT of the rule.

When the Fed inserted the note to 9-3, "The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds." it seems to me that the Fed was trying to say, if you are dribbling and step out of bounds, then you're out of bounds.

I don't think they were trying to say, that if you are trying to save the ball from going out of bounds, catch the ball, save it from going OB, fall OB, establish yourself back IB, then dribble the ball, that you have committed a violation.

How do I know what they were thinking...Case 7.1.1D

gagadfgadfgadga

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So you don't have a rule / case play / interpretation that backs it up? That's what I thought.

Umm, I think I quoted the definition of an interrupted dribble, and showed that it's possible that this play doesn't meet this definition.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If in the opinion of the official the player continuously maintained player control, then this is a dribble and a violation.

That's all I was saying. There is more to this than meets the eye and the official has to use best judgment. I was not saying the case book play was incorrect, just that is was not as clearcut as almost everyone other than JTRICE was making it to be.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Umm, I think I quoted the definition of an interrupted dribble, and showed that it's possible that this play doesn't meet this definition.

I was not saying the case book play was incorrect, just that is was not as clearcut as almost everyone other than JTRICE was making it to be.

Aren't these two very conflicting statements, Jim?

If you're saying that this play doesn't meet the definition of an interrupted dribble, then you also have to say that the case book play is incorrect. The case book play is based on an interrupted dribble occurring.

You can choose Door #1 or you can choose Door #2. You can't choose both of them, which is what you're trying to do. If you think that this isn't an interrupted dribble, then the case book play...and the NFHS rulesmakers....have to be wrong.

Which one do you choose?
(1) interrupted dribble and legal play as per the case book play, or..
(2) regular dribble with a subsequent violation and the case book play is wrong.