Case play 7.1.1 is not correct
 

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.

Are you kidding?

1) You're wrong. Case book plays 7.1.1A&B are correct as written.

2) Re: case book play 7.1.1.C--you've written it down wrong. You cited 7.1.1SitD above, not SitC....and there's nothing the matter with that case play either.

All three case plays are correct as written. How old is the case book that you're reading?

I'll save you the trouble of asking.....

(a) A1 started his dribble when he caught the ball and threw it back inbounds. When he then touched it in-bounds that is the same as legally touching a dribbled ball. Legal play
(b) A1 started his dribble when he caught the ball and tossed it back in-bounds. Dribbling again after coming back inbounds is just legally continuing that dribble. It's an interrupted dribble, John. Legal play.

OK, I give. Why do you think this is not right?

I see nothing wrong with case 7.1.1D. When I first read your post, I read it as "A1 ... tosses it to the back court." In that instance, it would be a violation (assuming the ball was in the front court to start with).

A hint:
 

I will have to admit that I was skeptical at first, also. But..... the play is wrong......... I will give you a hint........ Jurassic Referee is on the right track when he says "A1 started his dribble when he caught the ball and threw it back inbounds."

I think I know where you are going with this and that' s the rule about the dribbler touching the out of bounds line while dribbling. 9-3 (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." However, that does not apply to an interrupted dribble, which is what we have here.

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."

4-15-6 "During an interrupted dribble: d. Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble."

John, I'll give you a hint. The case book is right and you are wrong.

See rules 4-15-3, 4-15-5, 4-15-6(d).

Hey john,

there is no reason for you to make people irritated on this forum. If you think something is wrong then tell us what, why and any rule references you have. Do not just say the rules are wrong and tell everybody they can't see it.

You stated that you had a long discussion on your board about that rule so maybe if you stated your interpretation then we could debate it on here so we can all come to a logical interpretation that is legal according to the rules.

We are all on here to become better officials not to show off who knows the rules better

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.:D

Discussion on case play 7.1.1 Situation D
 

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.

I disagree. This is pretty clearly (at least to me) an interrupted dribble (the ball "momentarily gets away from the dribbler") and therefore no change is needed, and the case book is still correct.

The problem I have with your opinion on this is not illegal to start a dribble over the line. The ruling that the NF has given in the past if during the dribble the ball handler steps on the line then it would be illegal. I think you are taking one part of the rule and trying to string them together. In my opinion your point does not wash. I do not think the NF or any other code that has similar rules intended to have your situation ruled as a violation. I think that would be overly technical to make such a call. It is always allowed for a player to save the ball while over the out of bounds lines. Please do not make this call.

Peace

I don't have my rule books in front of me, but I'm wondering if you might be confusing issues.

First, I think we all agree the controlled toss is the start of a dribble. In the case of an interrupted dribble, the player can't go get it, pick it up with both hands, and start another dribble. I believe that's what 7.1.1 Sit D(c) is addressing. However, if the player goes to the ball that's bounding away, and starts bouncing it without catching it first, that would be legal because it would be a continuation of the same dribble. Are you saying because the ball didn't bounce off the player's foot, or something similar, that is what makes your play <b>not</B> an interrupted dribble? If so, what part of the definition of interrupted dribble applies in your case, and why would it not be considered an interrupted dribble?

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.

OK....on topic....

Did you read the case play? It stated <i>"A1 <b>catches</b> the ball while in the air and <b>tosses</b> it back..."</i>. 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.

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

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. :D

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.

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!!!!! :mad:

Why? <font = font>

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.

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".:)

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

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

Shut up.<i></i>

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.

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... :rolleyes:

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.

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.

Jtrice
 

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

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.