Um, my basis would probably be case book play 7.1.1SitD, which is certainly pretty definitive imo.

So....basically you're saying that the case play is wrong and you're right too, same as JTrice?

but um that is contrary to our goal.....I actually believe there have been parties and such for milestone posts (ie 1000, 2000, 3000 etc) LOL :D

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

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?

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?

Not if that player is in control.

No. I'm saying it's not as clear as you might think.

I know the image is of a player leaping out of bounds and recovering the ball after a heroic effort. Change the picture to a player tip-toeing in and out of bounds and tell me why it's the same ruling? Logically, if the player has never lost control of the ball then it's not an interrupted dribble.

If the player saves the ball, steps out of bounds with one foot, then steps back in, then the dribble hasn't been interrupted, since the ball has always been under the player's control. Is there another definition that I'm missing here?

Jim,
Good judgment about player control is needed here. If in the opinion of the official the player continuously maintained player control, then this is a dribble and a violation. If the decision is that there was a momentary loss of player control, then the play is legal.

The case book play is operating under the premise that there is a temporary loss of player control when the player tosses the ball to the floor inbounds and then lands out of bounds.

The important rule here is 4-12-1.
RULE 4, SECTION 12 CONTROL, PLAYER AND TEAM
ART. 1 . . . A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. There is no player control when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper, or during an interrupted dribble.

Due to this definition, there can be no player control when a player is out of bounds. The only way that the play in the Case Book can be deemed legal is because of an interrupted dribble.

I would advise you to understand the Case Book ruling as telling officials that under these circumstances a player should be considered to NOT have control. Otherwise, any time a player saved a ball just prior to touching out of bounds, it would be a violation as soon as the player touched OOB regardless of who touched the ball next! That would be absurd.

If you are going to allow a teammate or opponent to come up and grab the ball without blowing the whistle, then you need to allow the original player to do the same, once he has reestablished inbounds status.

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.

Spirit v Letter
 

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

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.

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.

Aren't these two very conflicting statements, Jim?:confused:

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....<b>have</b> 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.

I'm not saying the casebook is wrong. The case book rulings are part of the rule book and can't be wrong, by definition. What I'm saying is that the facts of the case are stated vaguely enough to feel that the official's judgment has to be used to determine whether the dribble was continuous or not.

If the official judges this to be an interrupted dribble then there is no violation, as in the casebook. If the official judges this to be a continuous dribble, then there is a violation. This doesn't mean that the case book is wrong. It means that the case cited doesn't apply.