Self bat

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The huge difference is that palming the ball is specified as a way that ends a dribble. (4-15-4-b)

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 legally ended his dribble by grabbing it.

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

[WayneG]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Hi Wayne. Welcome to the forum!

Originally Posted by WayneG

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by WayneG

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 legally ended his dribble by grabbing it.

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

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 legally ended his dribble by grabbing it.

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

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.

[WayneG]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

And right there is where you're wrong. If he's not holding the ball and never dribbled, he can't be called for an illegal dribble either. Rule 4-15-4NOTE2 says that a player is NOT 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 wrong 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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by WayneG

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by WayneG

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.

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.

[WayneG]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by WayneG

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.

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

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

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

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

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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