So then I guess you are saying then is that if a dribbler bats the ball up in the air, that he can legally, only 'hover' close to the ball and wait for it to hit the floor and hope someone else doesn't grab it first. That, in itself, seems suspect, IMO.

First, and most importantly, I had to find out what krill was. Now that I know, I absolutely agree it's different from apples. Although, I have had some apples that have smelled rather fishy...

Second, where does it say "if the dribble continues"? In my extreme example, can a player keep tapping the ball in the air without it touching the ground? The tap never meets the requirement of ending the dribble, so does that mean the dribble is continuing?

Third, we could start a rather lengthy discussion on whether the "touch" happens before the "catch", or if they happen at the same time. But my response would be you can have a touch without a catch, but you can't have a catch without a touch. Iow, the word touch covers all possibilities, from tapping the ball a different direction, to actually ending the dribble. The rule doesn't differentiate a type of touch.

If, in the OP, A1 had let the ball bounce before catching and shooting, there would be no violation. It just seems the violation occurs because the ball was touched (in some manner) before it was allowed to hit the ground.

Oranges and tangerines.

But that's exactly what the rule says. What's suspect about it?

Naw, my point was that 4-15-2 says "<b>during</b> the dribble....". It doesn't say "<b>after</b> the dribble....".

Man, don't take this personally, but it seems that you've gone completely downhill since you turned 50. Maybe Nevada was right about <b>some</b> officials.:D

:p

My body might say 50, but my mind says 11.

Your mind <b>is</b> 11. That's because it never got used at the same rate as your other body parts.

Well, <b>most</b> of your other body parts......:p

I know what you mean.

My uvula's still 11 as well.

4.15.4 SIT E b:since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is an illegal dribble.

The argument that the OP is not a violation seems to be based on the idea that the catch ends the dribble. True enough: 4.15.4.a The dribble ends when the dribbler......catches the ball.

SO, why in the above situation did the catch, which ends the dribble,
not prevent a violation?

You are completely correct about that.

However, it is not relevant. Grammatically, the "during' applies only to the time of the bat. The qualification of "during" doesn't carry over to conditional part of the statement....it doesn't affect the nature or time of the touch.

The only reason that it mentions "during" is to separate it from the case where a ball that is not in player control, such as a rebound attempt, where the player may bat it a indefinite number of times prior to gaining control.

I understand what your interpretation is, I just don't agree with it. I can leave it at that.

The case play says that the player throws the ball into the air - therefore, he had control and his previous dribble had ended.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/pics/75vuvula.jpg

Doctor: I won't beat around the bush, Babs.

Babs: Is it bad?

Doctor: In a nutshell, your uvula is on the fritz. Which reminds me of a little joke. Knock knock!

Babs: Who's there?

Doctor: Babs' uvula.

Babs: Babs' uvula who?

Doctor: I don't know, Babs. But I do know this - you've really let your uvula go to the dogs.

Babs: Yes.. I have..

Sister: I'd like to share this with you, Sis. [ opens a greeting card ] "To Babs: It'll behoove ya', to care for your uvula! Love, Sis."

Babs: Boy, do I hear ya', Sis! From now on, it's strictly good, clean fun. For me and my uvula!

Doctor: That reminds me of a little joke. Knock knock!

Announcer: Who's there?

[ Doctor, Babs and her sister laugh at the surprise interruption ]

Announcer: The preceding dramatization was brought to you by the National Uvula Association.

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
4.15.4 SIT E b:since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is an illegal dribble.

The argument that the OP is not a violation seems to be based on the idea that the catch ends the dribble. True enough: 4.15.4.a The dribble ends when the dribbler......catches the ball.

SO, why in the above situation did the catch, which ends the dribble,
not prevent a violation?



He had control, yes, but we don't know whether he had previously dribbled or not. It doesn't matter. Either way this is a violation.