Case play 7.1.1 is not correct

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

You also have to determine whether the player saved it from going out of bounds with a "controlled" save or a "batted" save. A controlled save is used in college to determine a reset of the shot clock in some instances and would also be used to determine if it would constitute a dribble. A batted save would not reset the shot clock and would not be considered a dribble, but for the most part we are not going to microdot and not let the player dribble on a save. If JTRICE ever gives the answer this could turn into a good discussion. Let's please stay on topic though and not get off on some tangent about making fun of someone. That seems to be happening alot or at least since I have started posting. Not meaning to be negative.

OK....on topic....

Did you read the case play? It stated "A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back...". If the player caught the ball and then threw it back, the player (1) established player control with the catch, and (2) started a dribble with the toss. Rules 4-12-1 and 4-15-1. Iow, the case play already told us that it was a controlled save.


And....off topic... please don't tell anyone here how or what to post. That's up to the moderators', not you or anyone else-including me. Also not meaning to be negative.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

OK....on topic....

Did you read the case play? It stated "A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back...". If the player caught the ball and then threw it back, the player (1) established player control with the catch, and (2) started a dribble with the toss. Rules 4-12-1 and 4-15-1. Iow, the case play already told us that it was a controlled save.


And....off topic... please don't tell anyone here how or what to post. That's up to the moderators', not you or anyone else-including me. Also not meaning to be negative.

Jurassic I never told anyone how nor what to post. I just politefully asked that we stay on the topic of basketball without putting up cute pictures and talking about eating popcorn, correcting grammar, and other cute anecdotes that seem to make it into the threads, when indeed the topic is basketball officiating. Threads could be alot shorter and people's amounts of posts would be a ton less. I don't mean to start a fight, just felt like I should let it be known, although by the amount of post I have it doesn't give me that much credibility or believeability to the rest of the big timers on the forum.

I did read the post and I was just throwing in my two cents about how we, as officials, need to recognize the difference between the two saves. I know it was off topic a little bit from the main thread point, but it was still within the realm of basketball officiating.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I just politefully asked that we stay on the topic of basketball without putting up cute pictures and talking about eating popcorn, correcting grammar, and other cute anecdotes that seem to make it into the threads, when indeed the topic is basketball officiating.

Fine.

The answer to your question above then is "No, everybody will continue to post what they want...and the moderators will sort 'em out".

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

and people's amounts of posts would be a ton less.

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

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

please don't tell anyone here how or what to post. That's up to the moderators', not you or anyone else-including me.

Then why are you telling him what he shouldn't post?

Originally Posted by btaylor

I just politefully asked that we stay on the topic of basketball without . . . correcting grammar . . .when indeed the topic is basketball officiating.

Trying . . . to . . . resist. . . Politeful. . . poli. . . p . . . p . . . room spinning. . . can't breathe. . .

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Then why are you telling him what he shouldn't post?

Shut up.

[Jimgolf]

Why would this necessarilly be considered an interrupted dribble? The case doesn't say how long the player is out of bounds before returning and continuing the dribble.

Conceivably, this could be the same dribble - player saves the ball, steps out, comes back in and dribbles before the ball bounces a second time - the ball has never been out of the player's control. If you would you still contend that this is an interrupted dribble, what is the basis for that?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Why would this necessarilly be considered an interrupted dribble? The case doesn't say how long the player is out of bounds before returning and continuing the dribble.

Conceivably, this could be the same dribble - player saves the ball, steps out, comes back in and dribbles before the ball bounces a second time - the ball has never been out of the player's control. If you would you still contend that this is an interrupted dribble, what is the basis for that?

If it's not an interrupted dribble, and the player had full control the whole time, then it's a violation the moment they touch OBB, as per Cameron's and BktBallRef's post. (It's the rule where if the player is OOB, while dribbling, it is a violation even though they may not be touching the ball at that moment.) So, if you go back to the original post and the question, that wasn't one of the answers to the question.

I imagine the play as follows: A1 and A2 in the backcourt, all the other players are in A's frontcourt. A1 passes to A2, who isn't looking and is running towards the frontcourt. A1 sees their pass about to go OOB, and saves it. Since all the other players aren't close, A1 comes back inbounds and retrieves the ball.

[Nu1]

M&M...I would say your play is an illegal dribble. The first thrown ball (pass to A2 that didn't touch anyone and was bouncing out of bounds) was actually a dribble.

1. If A1 dribbled first...ended the dribble...threw the ball towards A2...and then ran after the ball and grabbed it to save it from going out of bounds...it would be an illegal dribble as soon as A1 grabbed the ball.

2. If A1 never used the dribbled...threw the ball towards A2...then ran after the ball and saved it by throwing it in bounds...and returned inbounds and touched the ball again before anyone else...it would be an illegal dribble when A1 touched the ball upon returning.

I hope that makes sense. It sounds confusing while I type it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nu1

M&M...I would say your play is an illegal dribble. The first thrown ball (pass to A2 that didn't touch anyone and was bouncing out of bounds) was actually a dribble.

1. If A1 dribbled first...ended the dribble...threw the ball towards A2...and then ran after the ball and grabbed it to save it from going out of bounds...it would be an illegal dribble as soon as A1 grabbed the ball.

2. If A1 never used the dribbled...threw the ball towards A2...then ran after the ball and saved it by throwing it in bounds...and returned inbounds and touched the ball again before anyone else...it would be an illegal dribble when A1 touched the ball upon returning.

I hope that makes sense. It sounds confusing while I type it.

Um...er,...never mind. I believe you're right on both counts. But, I knew that; I was just testing to see if anyone was paying attention...

Actually, what I meant to say was A2 was the one to save it from going OOB. I was trying to point out that there really aren't too many opportunities for a player to save a ball while going OOB, and then being the first to come back and get it, without all the other players being close by; thus the backcourt example.

Writing out a play, and actually seeing it live, are two different animals. I gotta start leaving the writing to the professionals.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Why would this necessarilly be considered an interrupted dribble? The case doesn't say how long the player is out of bounds before returning and continuing the dribble.

Conceivably, this could be the same dribble - player saves the ball, steps out, comes back in and dribbles before the ball bounces a second time - the ball has never been out of the player's control. If you would you still contend that this is an interrupted dribble, what is the basis for that?

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?

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Conceivably, this could be the same dribble - player saves the ball, steps out, comes back in and dribbles before the ball bounces a second time - the ball has never been out of the player's control. If you would you still contend that this is an interrupted dribble, what is the basis for that?

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