Self bat

[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.

[Mark Dexter]

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

Originally Posted by WayneG

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

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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 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 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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

This is BS.

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.

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, BATS or rolls the ball to another 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 contend. 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......

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.