I envision a <b>rule</b> that says a bat can be pass, and vice-versa.

If you don't understand simple rules definitions, as well as the rules,you obviously cannot call a play correctly.

Not really....:D

Actually, I got this part but I'm not so sure we are all in agreement on the answer.

No, I understand the intent just fine, it's all the discussion on batting the ball that was troublesome. To me, once we enter into batting the ball, we are entering into an interrupted dribble. My position hasn't changed though, you can not pass (not bounce-pass) the ball to yourself. I call that bball 101.

I agree and I'm not arguing that at all, but remember, I think it was Wilt Chamberlain that batted the ball off the rebound all the way down the court without dribbling and scored. Since no one could jump as high as him, the defense had no way of stopping the play accept to foul him. Not what we want.

Knowing the intent and purpose of the rule is paramount. Sometimes the details behind the rules gets in the way of just managing the game and getting the right call. What I'm talking about here is overthinking the play.

I get it but my point is you can't go from point A to point B without dribbling the ball. If you want to call it illegal dribble, fine, if I want to call it traveling, fine, we both got violations, we're both right as far as the game is concerned. Some of us might be more right than others but then the issue becomes more esoteric and I think the bigger picture here is to just recognize the violation.

The huge difference is that palming the ball is specified as a way that ends a dribble. (4-15-4-b) Touching the ball a second time before it touches the floor does not, by definition, end the dribble, but we know that it is a violation. (4.15.4 sit. D) So now we know that we can have an illegal dribble violation without ending the dribble, but where is this explained in the Rules Book?

Sorry but you haven't figured it out yet. It's not a violation. You're simply calling it a violation because you don't like the way it looks. And that's the worst kind of stupid. That's why you can't interpret the rule properly.

Exactly. And grabbing the ball also ends a dribble, as per 4-15-4(a). In the original post, that's exactly what the dribbler did--->grabbed the ball. Iow, he <b>legally</b> ended his dribble by grabbing it.

What violation did he commit by grabbing it, if he didn't dribble again or travel?

number of steps
 

Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth. IMO I would consider this an attempted pass by the player to himself, which would be a violation. He obviously tapped the ball to himself in an attempt to get the ball behind the defender to get an easy bucket. One thing that no one has really discussed was the actual amount of steps he actually took. If for instance he did take four or five steps to retrieve the tap, then I would think that he did indeed violate at least the rule about only passing to a teammate. But if he only took 2 steps and then jumped off his second step, then no violation has occured because a player is allowed to take two legal steps when the dribble has finished. When the player made an upward motion to tap the ball (he must have to for it tp go over the defenders head), I think this legally ended his dribble. Then he would be allowed to take his two legal steps, jump, catch and shoot without violation. Once he takes that third step, it would become a violation.

Hi Wayne. Welcome to the forum!

Where is "passing to yourself" listed as a violation? Violations are generally listed in Rule 9, but I don't think you'll find it in there. One reason is that, as BktBallRef has pointed out, a pass is defined as one player throwing or batting the ball to another player. By definition, you can't pass to yourself.

Again, you're going to have to point that rule out to me. Generally, once a pivot has been established, only the non-pivot foot can be used to take a step. The pivot foot can be lifted, but not returned to the floor before the ball is released on a shot or pass.

Are you saying that the ball has to come to rest in the player's hand when the ball is batted upward? I would probably disagree with that. Why does an upward motion end the dribble?

Just some stuff to think about.

Wayne, welcome to the forum.

First, there's no such thing as a pass to yourself. What you describe is not possible. Read the definition of a pass. A pass is throwing the ball to a teammate. We have to use rule book definitions, not Webster's. What we have is the start of a dribble, not a pass, in any way, shape, or form.

Second, it's makes no difference how many steps who took. YOU CANNOT TRAVEL IF YOU ARE NOT HOLDING THE BALL. This is a dribble, legal or illegal, and you cannot during a dribble.

I'm not arguing about the original post, never said it was a violation. This thread has merely caused us all to closely examine the rules regarding a dribble. Everybody knows (how do we know? I don't know, we just do) that it is a violation to touch the ball twice during a dribble without the ball hitting the floor in between. This is stated in the CASE BOOK. I want to know if there is anything in the RULE BOOK which tells us this is a violation. HAVE I OVERLOOKED SOMETHING OBVIOUS?

see signature line :D

The violation is an illegal dribble.

Again, the rule says:

"4-15-ART. 2 . . . During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is
permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)."

What does provided mean? It means "if" or "on the condition". That says that the player may bat the ball into the air IF (on the condition) they permit it to strike the floor before they touch it. It doesn't qualify the type of touch. The condition covers catching, dribbling, batting, tapping, etc.....all forms of touching. If they don't permit it to strike the floor after batting it into the air, they have violated 4-15-2....which is part of the definition of a legal dribble. Hence, it is an illegal dribble.

relative terms
 

First off, I understand the definitions of pass and traveling. I used the term "pass" not in contradiction to the rule book but to say what the players intentions were. He did it to pass the ball to himself to give himself an advantage over the defender.
Second, I wasn't saying the player traveled, I was simply saying that the number of steps could possibly have an impact on the call. No one else had mentioned that so I thought I'd bring up that as a possible point to be addressed.

So, if this is a dribble, then it is a violation of 4-15-2. During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is "touched" again with the hand(s). We're not talking about dribbling again, shooting, or passing. We are talking about "TOUCHING", PERIOD!! Thus, when he caught the ball, he touched it before it struck the floor, it immediately became a violation.

This player, who was in control of the ball, went from A to B without properly dribbling. Since he was not holding the ball during transit, he cannot be penalized for travelling, thus illegal dribble is the correct offense.

BktBallRef and I have previously debated what constitutes a legal dribble. I have taken the position and still maintain that the ball must strike the floor (or something which is treated as the floor, ie the opponent's backboard or an official) or the action doesn't meet the definition of a dribble.

If a player has control of the ball and doesn't properly dribble, then he must follow the pivot foot restrictions of the traveling rule.

And right there is where you're wrong. If he's not holding the ball and <b>never</b> dribbled, he can't be called for an illegal dribble either. Rule 4-15-4NOTE2 says that a player is <b>NOT</b> in control while batting a rebound/pass away from other players. There also is no limit set to the number of batts a player can make while the ball is still in the air.

Note that I was responding to Old School's contention that Chamberlain can't tip or bat the ball all the way down the floor without violating. And BktBallRef was also responding to Old School's similar <b>wrong</b> contention that you can't legally get from Point A to Point B without dribbling. If he batts the ball on a rebound, and the ball never comes to rest on his hand during any of the subsequent tips/batts, he sureashell legally can. And you also sureashell can't call an illegal dribble on that play if there never was any control.

It makes no difference what his intentions are. Players perfrom legal acts all the time that give them an advantage over their opponent.

No one else mentioned it because it's not true.

Please tell me what violation can be called based on the number of steps he took. The ONLY one that I know of is traveling. You certainly can't call an illegal dribble based on the number of steps. It has nothing to do with it. But if you can enlighten us with some new violation that can be called, based on the number of steps a player takes on a play, I'd love to hear it.

That's better! Now you're learning, newbie! Reference a rule. Don't tell me what you think. Nobody givesa**** what anybody thinks on here. Give us an interp based on the rule. I disagree with your interp of the rule and that's fine. But at least we have interps now and not guesses. :)

The problem, as I understand it, is that while the rule seems to list this as being illegal, it doesn't list any penalty (i.e., it's not a violation listed in rule 9).

My "guess" -- it's a violation, but I can't prove it. shrug.

intent
 

First off thanks for the welcome. Been on board for awhile, just haven't posted much. I enjoy the discussions and competitive banter, just like Around The Horn. lol.

Secondly, anything I posted before was not guessing. I added a couple things to the discussion to get feedback. I never said "I guess" in any of my posts.

Back to business. When it come to intent, it is relavent. In the front of the rule book is a section titled "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES". Our judgement of intent is very valuable in determining if a player commits an act on purpose or unknowingly violates a rule. The player probably didn't realize what he did was possibly illegal. But he intended to bat the ball to himself. Now if he knew it was illegal and did it anyway, well then we have to call him on it. A flying elbow is illegal. We as officials have to judge intent of the elbow. As a part of a legal pivot, to clear out, or intent to injure. Intent of the rules as well as a players intentions cannot be ignored.

Now, the first sentence states. The restricions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and defense;....

Legal actions don't violate any balance of play, an illegal action does.

Intent is clearly something to be judged. Of course players use "legal" tactics all the time. What we are discussing may or may not be a legal tactic. Yes, what the player did may or may not be legal. That's why it was brought up for discussion. The original post shows the intent of the player to "deliver" the ball to himself in an argueably illegal manner. Notice I didn't use the word pass. I quoted rule 4-15-2 word for word. Reading the original post and that rule, "practically" mirror images.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone of the travel, just adding to the discussion to find out if anyone knew of any rule that might address that. As a newbie, I'm using this site to improve. If I have a point to make in order to improve myself as an official. Then I will make the point. If someone had said the steps definatively had no impact, then fine, end of subject. But if they did have an impact, then we would have been overlooking something important. I was just throwin it in to find out, not to convince anyone otherwise. Knowing whether or not the steps are important help with making my judgement and rule interpretation.

Thanks for your clean and polite feedback. Just wanted to join in a clean and respectful debate. :)

Are you really saying that if a player did something illegal but he didn't <b>know</b> that it was illegal, that we might let him get away with it?:confused:

Lah me......now we're supposed to be mind readers. :rolleyes:

Those statements are patently ridiculous. We don't call the intent; we call the <b>act</b>. It doesn't mean diddly-squat whether a player <b>realizes</b> what he's doing was illegal or not. All that matters was whether he actually <b>did</b> do something that was illegal. Whether a player knows or doesn't know what he's doing is legal or illegal is <b>NEVER</b> a factor when it comes to an official making a call.

Again, we judge the <b>act</b>, not the player. Intent is <b>never</b> a factor when it comes to calling violations.

With some of the players I've reffed, this would be difficult. With some of the coaches - impossible. ;)

I think he's ending the dribble (in the OP) because he brings the ball to rest in his hands (4-15-4 a.) and possibly touches the ball with both hands (4-15-4 c.)

And fanboys get upset with my (correct) interpretation of the "jump stop" rule.

So do you call a travel every time a player's non-pivot foot moves without dribbling? :rolleyes:

You left out the most important part - during a dribble. The dribble ends when he picks up the ball to shoot it. IMO, we're doing the same thing here (on a double touch) as when a player clearly picks up the ball, then bounce passes it to a teammate. We wait to see if it's a pass or the start of another dribble.

Wayne, welcome, but I'm going to have to disagree with your central tenet.

There are plenty of things that can happen in a basketball game that are perfectly within the rules, but give an advantage to one team or the other. A well-placed screen, set within the limits of the appropriate rules, gives a huge advantage to an offensive team. Having the lower block on a FT gives a large advantage in rebounding. Both of these are tipping the balance one way or the other - what the referees are there to prevent is an advantage not allowed or intended by a rule.

4-15-4: The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing, or batting the ball to the floor.......

Throwing and batting are interchangeable when it comes to a dribble.

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,
prevent a violation?

I hereby join the camp which says that the OP is indeed a violation.

I believe even more firmly, however, that this is one of those that is in a somewhat gray area which slips through the cracks of the rules and is not definitively covered. I also am reasonably sure that this is a play that I have never witnessed in 20+ years as an official and more years than that as a spectator.

Bottom line, if we have a play in this category, be quick and emphatic with the call, and try to avoid pausing and scratching your head between the whistle and the signal. And really hope that it doesn't happen twice and you and your partner make opposite calls.

That is not the issue here. If a player has ended his dribble, then throws the ball toward a teammate, then for whatever reason, goes and catches it himself, it is an illegal dribble whether it hits the floor first or not.

I think that catching the ball does prevent a violation. I (at least) believe that if the player threw the ball into the air, then touched it at all and let it bounce, we'd have a violation.


I can certainly see where the disagreement comes from. I think that if NFHS wants a violation called, 4-15-2 should state that a violation should be called, and the situation should be added to rule 9.

Agreed, but the point is the same - sometimes we need to wait to see what the outcome of the entire play is before we can call a violation.

True. I think what's hanging people up is the separation of the determination from the time of occurrence.

Once the ball is batted upward, it cannot be determined that the dribble ends until the ball is caught, because opportunity has to be granted for it to hit the floor. However, once that determination is made, the ball not having hit the floor before being caught, the dribble is known retroactively to have ended when the ball was so batted. Therefore the batting of the ball to himself did not occur during an interval when the player was dribbling, and it's a violation whose name is apparently undetermined.

This is not the only example in basketball of "suspense" in a determination. AFAIK in USA-Canada rules (NCAA-AAU) 3 seconds in the lane may similarly be determined retroactively when a player with the ball in the attacking lane stops penetrating toward his goal.

Robert

You sure about that? I didn't see it listed as one of the specifically illegal dribbles. Does the definition of "dribble" encompass it? JimGolf wrote:

That would be true only if it's a dribble.

Robert

The "during" is only refering to the time of the bat, nothing else. The though has no such restriction...it's simply a touch....either during the dribble or ending it.

Where may I find a rule in any ruleset that states that batting the ball ends a dribble?

Nobody said that batting the ball per se ends a dribble. After all, dribbling is continued by batting the ball against the floor. But this particular batting of the ball ended that dribble, because it did not continue the dribble.

Robert

"Not continuing [a] dribble" does not end a dribble. The only things that can actually end a dribble are listed in 4-15-4.

What he said......

Batting the ball is not listed as one of the things that will <b>end</b> a dribble.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref
This player, who was in control of the ball, went from A to B without properly dribbling. Since he was not holding the ball during transit, he cannot be penalized for travelling, thus illegal dribble is the correct offense.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

And I was talking about the situation posted by the OP. He wrote that this action occurred "during a dribble," and we both know that part of the definition of a dribble is "ball movement caused by a player in control..." So my statement was completely correct. :)

So, if A1 is standing still, dribbling the ball and bats the ball up in the air and catches it, ending the dribble, it is a violation? 4.15.4 E (a) seems to indicate you can toss/bat the ball to yourself while not moving the pivot feet - therefore, touching the ball as you describe above would be legal if the pivot feet were not moved. Therefore, your logical argument has a flaw. 4-15-2 applies only when the ball strikes the floor after the second touch. If the ball never touches the floor again, 4-15-2 cannot be applied.

This is BS, you guys are reading more into the rules then we really need to. Remember the Intent and Purpose of the rule. It is not the rules intention to allow a player to pass the ball to himself. There is an allowance in the rules if in the referee opinion the player tried to shoot the ball, then he can legally go recover it. The OP threw the word BAT in there which I contend you can not bat and pass the ball at the same time. Either you passed the ball or you batted the ball. The referee should be able to easily make this judgment.


What do you mean you never seen this. We see it every year in the slam dunk contest. Batting the ball happens all the time on rebounds. Batting the ball while in the middle of the dribble and no defender caused you to do it, will look so stupid that it'll be a very easy call to make, plus the player may get a quick hook to the bench for doing it.

Man, I am not scratching my head on nothing, that's going to be a violation each and everytime it occurs on my court. I'm not thinking twice about it either, no coach is going to argue this call. The only way you're get an argument from the coach is if you don't call it, that will be guaranteed.

Yes...by 4-15-2...illegal dribble. A carry is also still a carry if the player's feet are stationary.

It does say that holding the ball, tossing it up, and catching it....all without moving the feet, is OK. It doesn't talk about actions that are during dribble. It even says that these actions are NOT part of a legal dribble.

That makes no sense at all. It says absolutely nothing about what happens after the 2nd touch. It might or might not touch the floor again. It has no relevance.

WHAT??? A player standing there dribbling bats the ball into the air and catches it without moving his feet and you will call an illegal dribble? For ending his dribble? I really don't get that...if he bats it into the air, catches it and then dribbles again, great...but no way do you all an illegal driblle for ENDING his dribble...

You're right. What you said is BS.

NFHS rule 4-31-- "A pass is movement of the of the ball caused by a player who throws, <b>BATS</b> or rolls the ball to <b>another</b> player."

The NCAA rule is basically the same.

Rule 4-15 defines a bat as intentionally striking the ball with the hand(s).

The NCAA rule is basically the same.

Ipw, you sureashell can pass the ball by batting it. Haven't you ever heard of a freaking tip pass?

I'm well aware of what you <b>contend</b>. Unfortunately, your contentions are completely wrong. Again. Always. Forever. And ever!

If you don't know or understand these very basic rules, howinthehell can you tell anybody what is a correct call or not?

Lah me, it just never ends......:rolleyes:

I was with M&M and Camron until this question came up, and now I'm on the other side.

I think the highly referenced 4-15-2 could be worded this way to make more sense...."During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the dribbler can continue that dribble."

That said, to catch the ball after the bat is legal, but to touch the ball after the bat in an effort to continue the dribble, before it hits the floor is a violation.

Well, if that's what you want to accomplish, then the wording should be changed. However, the wording clearly says the ball cannot be <B>touched</B> after the first bat into the air, and before the ball is permitted to hit the ground. Touching certainly includes another bat, a catch, a tip, etc. In my opinion, the rule is there to prohibit multiple touches in between the ball hitting the floor during a dribble. In the OP, the catch is the second touch before the ball hits the floor.

So, the obvious, extreme example would be where A1 taps the ball over B1, runs around and taps the ball again over B2, gets to it and taps it over B3, all without the ball ever hitting the ground. Anyone see that as a legal play? Of course not, due to 4-15-2. You cannot say the taps ever ended the dribble, because it does not meet any of the criteria in 4-15-4. And, if the dribble never ended, you cannot call it a travelling violation, because you cannot travel during a dribble. So what made it an illegal dribble? The second touch before it was allowed to hit the ground.

I understand you can bat the ball for a pass, that is not the issue.

If this is a very basic rule then how come we are not all in agreement here. I contend this is not a basic rule as far as the rulebook is concerned. However, it is bb-101 knowledge that you can't pass the ball to yourself. You learn that from playing the game which you obviously have never played before because if you did, you wouldn't be saying this is not a violation.

It is also my contention that people who played the game make the best referee's. They won't have any problems recognizing this play and the violation. Bottom line, officials that never played are the only ones that will argue that this play is legal and attempt to justify it.

Exactly.

An unrelated rule/case (traveling) says that a player holding the ball can toss the ball into the air and catch it as long as the pivot foot doesn't move. If the pivot foot does move, it is traveling. This rule has no relationship to what is or is not a legal dribble.

Rule 4-15-2 quite clearly says the dribbler can, during a dribble, bat it into the air but that if they do they may not touch it again until after it has bounced. There are no exceptions for the situation where the "touch" ends the dribble. The mere touch itself is the violation.

I'm really puzzled about why this is so hard to get. The grammar in 4-15-2 is not that complicated.

Yup, I agree with that.

Unfortunately, that hasn't got anything to do with <b>ending</b> a dribble. If the ball doesn't hit the floor, you don't have a "during the dribble". The dribble <b>ended</b>!

So, are you saying the second <B>touch</B> of the ball ends the dribble?

Nope.

Yup.

Oh bullpucky, you understand that! And higher and deeper bullpucky that it isn't an issue.

Here's <b>three</b> of your posts in this thread:
1) <i>"Somebody needs to define the word bat in the federation code. To me Bat does <b>NOT</b> mean pass."</i>
2) <i>"The OP threw the word BAT in there which I contend you can <b>NOT</b> bat and pass the ball at the same time."</i>
3) <i>"I contend that you can <b>NOT</b> bat and pass the ball at the same time. Either you passed the ball or batted the ball."</i>

The issue is that you're now trying to say that you understand something when you've already posted at least three times showing that you don't have a clue what we were talking about. You've been quite insistent that a "bat" and a "pass" are completely different things. You also thought that a "bat" wasn't defined in the rules when it sureashell is. The only reason that you <b>might</b> understand now is because I cited the damn rules to you. I told you way back that you were completely wrong, and that you should look up the proper rules. Well, you wouldn't, or more likely couldn't, do that-- so you've been posting your completely wrong bullpucky ever since.

If you don't own a rule book or understand basic rules, don't pretend.

No, and I never have said that. Grabbing the ball ends the dribble. The second touch might be a violation <b>if</b> the dribble continues.

If the dribble ends, it's simply impossible for the second touch to happen <b>during</b> the dribble.

Apples and krill.

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.