So IOW you'll accept that there are cases where DD would be the wrong call. That's a step in the right direction.

The rule says it's illegal to dribble a second time.

It does not say it's illegal to *start* a dribble a second time. That's because you must wait for the play to continue to determine if a second dribble occurred.

Don't overthink this, it's not that hard.

Well, kinda depends on a number of factors, don't you think?

LOL! Thanks for the laugh! :D:D:D:D:D

The thing is, a bounce pass becomes a dribble once the passer touches it first.

correct - but a dribble becomes a dribble when it starts.
there are times when you have to wait and see but if a play stops their dribble and then starts to dribble they have violated once the ball hits the floor.
Example
player A1 has stopped thier dribble and then bats the ball to the floor to start a dribble -
a)On the way to the floor the ball is hit by player B1
b) The ball hits the floor and the ball is batted OB by player B1
c)On the way to the floor the ball is hit by player A2
d)The ball hits the floor and is coming back to A1

I have
nothing in A and C
illegal dribble in B and D

But it's not illegal to start a dribble a second time.

After further review, I'm not violating the dribbler until he touches the second dribble after the dribble starts..

If in caseplay 9.5 A1 dribbles stops and throws the ball off the opponents backboard or an official and catches the rebound constitutes another dribble the caseplay specifically says the violation doesn't occur until A1 is the first one to touch the ball.

If you start a dribble a second time - are you not dribbling a second time?

is that not illegal?

There are cases where you have to wait to make the violation call agreed
and the OP we are discussing is one of those.
however;
if a player is standing still and dribbling with no other players around, the ball comes to rest in two hands and the player then bats the ball directly to the floor as soon as the ball hits the floor they have dribbled and violated. because they have clearly stared a dribble.

there are cases where batting the ball up court or in the air may not clearly have started a dribble, so you would have to wait.

Nope. <b> </b>

Sound right to say no violation in B and technically no violation in D either.
From the case play the intent of the rule seems clear that a dribble is not defined as an actual dribble until the ball first returns to the player who started the dribble. This does seem to contradict the definition of dribble, where the dribble begins when the ball is pushed to the floor... the difference between dribble and double dribble.

Sounds inconsistent - if an isolated player is starting a dribble then he/she is going to let the ball return to their hand... if instead they realize they cannot dribble and back away - the consistent thing to do would be no violation.

No and yes.<i></i>

I'll disagree with myself and say the key is whether it can be determined that a pass was the intent, which is the case in the situation discussed - so no violation after a pass until the dribbler is the first to touch the pass. That means a violation in D) above because the intent was to dribble.

Cool. You can read minds.

Sure wish I could.