Case play 7.1.1 is not correct

[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.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Have you rediscussed this issue with your basketball meeting group? If so, what was the consensus?

[lrpalmer3]

If you think the case book is wrong, try this:

Think for a couple moments that the case book is right, and that a player saving the ball onto the court starts a dribble, but the dribble is "interrupted" because the ball has gotten away from the player.

If this description of "away" does not match your interpretation of "away," then consider adjusting your interpretation.

If this description of "interrupted dribble" does not match your interpretation of "interrupted dribble", then consider adjusting your interpretation.

Rather than start with the assumption of case book error, start with the assumption that a case that's been in the book for several years is correct. Just consider adjusting your understanding until it matches what's in the case book.

I will agree, however, that the case book could be more clear. I had similar doubts about this play when I read it years ago. I decided to change some of the definitions in my head, rather than attempt to change the case book.

If the committee agrees with you and changes the play, then I will change my thinking. Until then, I'll stand by the case play.