I've got block. Unless I knew the kid from childhood, and how hard he'd been working on drawing the charge, and then I might have a PC. If I liked him.:p

This is my opinion too.

Even if he did have possession, I'd still have a block. Defender was still moving forward at the point of contact.

In Texas, at least my part of Texas, the T would have made this call as he would have been right there. Even with two officials the T is table side.

Do you disagree that while the contact is imminent, A1 has his hand on top of the ball and is pushing it down to the ground? If so, state why.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince anyone that A1 had possession - I want to learn why my interp of possession seems to be in the minority. :)

Disregard the above...three whistles...my bad :o

That's called a DanDo.

Where his hand is has nothing to do with control as it relates to this situation. The player was receiving a pass that was not at all controlled. If after the ball hitting his hand, then the floor I would allow this player to grab the ball with both hands (one if he could do it) and dribble. A dribble is a conscious act. This player was just trying to gather in the pass and he did not do that.

Peace

So then we just have a difference of opinion. That's fair. I'm comfortable with ruling the hand-to-ball contact is the start of a legal dribble.

I see this play all the time when a pass does not quite reach its target and the hand essentially "bats" the ball to the floor. Then a player grabs the ball and dribbles and I have yet to see anyone complain. Usually someone does not start a dribble without grabbing the ball first. Not saying technically you could be wrong, but I do not think that uses good common sense. I really feel that way in a play like this.

Peace

I didn't see "control". It was VERY close. I sometimes conclude as you do that the hand on top the ball pushing it down is the start of a dribble...but not always....just depends on how much "control" I think the player has. It's a pretty fine line.

Back when I was in college, I was asked to be the shot clock operator for the basketball games.

They use 3-man and there was a sitch where B1 reached in, put his hand on the ball, and pushed it to the ground. A1 and B1's backs were to the C who was moving up closer to the division line to see the play better. I reset the clock (and I was smart enough to first look at the display before resetting it). I then reset it again once A1 regained possession. (The whole play was about 15-18 feet from me.)

It was the type of play where B1 was able to get a quick handle on it, but wouldn't have been able to keep it because he was off balance.

Seeing that A1 was closely guarded near the division line, and not theatening the goal, the T (crew chief, now D1 official) blew his whistle and came over to me. He wanted to know why I reset the clock. He knew I am an official and I explained to him what happened, including the value of the pre-reset clock.

He agreed with me that the clock should have been reset (twice in this case). It all happened very quickly and the sitch re-enforced (sp?) to me that the act of pushing the ball to the ground must mean possession.

Disagree. Change that to <b>might</b> mean possession. It is, and always will be, a judgment call between a dribble and a muff.

True; I guess I neglected to make it clear that the difference between my sitch and the sitch in the video is that a foul didn't complicate the ruling. In my sitch, B1 deliberately placed his hand on the ball, and pushed it to the ground. That same act would constitute the allowed dribble if B1 then caught the ball.

You're a better man than I am. You can read minds.:)

Thank you! I like to keep in mind that often Team B will try to steal the ball from Team A. ;) They call it a turnover. :P