Self bat

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

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

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

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 might 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.