Granted, if someone else grabs it before it hits the floor, but when it is "pushed to the floor," it has met the definition of a dribble.





There is a way, watch the play. For the most part, the start of a dribble and a pass simply do not look alike. If you have any doubt, by all means hold the whistle. But in the rare instance that say: A1, who has used his dribble, forgets and pushes the ball to the floor. The ball bounces off of A1's own foot, and is recovered by A2. Legal play?

So which carries more weight, Howard or the current NFHS case book? :D

Does Howard realize that his above stated opinion is contrary to what is written in 4.15.4 Sit A?

4.15.4 SITUATION A: As dribbler A1 attempts to change directions to avoid guard B1, he/she allows the ball to come to rest in one hand in bringing the ball from the right to the left side of the body. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble. RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball, the dribble ended and when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred. (9-5)

Perhaps you should send this case play to him and see what his response is.

Again I'm sure that he is a nice man who is very knowledgeable about the NFHS rules, but it is hard to defend a position that is contrary to what appears in the book in black and white. ;)

And what's the call if dribbler A1 after palming the ball then <b>pushes</b> the ball to the floor <b>AT</b> another player?

A poorly worded case play that doesn't cover different possibilities doesn't prove a damn thing imo.

Thirteen freaking pages of this nonsense......:rolleyes:

I can tell you what he'll say, but I'll e-mail him anyway. ALthough if I get a lousy schedule, Nev, I'm moving to your area and I expect you to make up the difference!

What he'll say is that it isn't the push itself and that the wording is a little misleading. But I"ll let you know when I get a response.

Obviously this case play doesn't cover that situation. Both of us agree on that, and wouldn't attempt to apply it to the scenario which you have posed.

It says right there in the case play, "A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble." So what you have asked isn't germane.

The case play is not "poorly worded" as you say, rather it is narrowly written to cover a particular situation, and is very instructive with regard to the given circumstances. The fact is that NFHS has very clearly told us the point at which a violation occurs in this situation. That is a critical fact to know as it could have bearing on other actions and decisions that an official may have to make on a court.

Please do, Juulie. For the record, I believe that Howard was thinking in the general case, as JR has been, and phrased his answer for that. (That general case being that it is NOT clear what the player intented in sending the ball to the floor.)
However, the question under discussion as posed by just another ref which you sent to Howard was specifically written in the narrow sense (It is obvious that the player's action is the start of a dribble.) as is the above case play.

I posted the case in question 4 or 5 pages ago and it got very little attention.
I thought at the time it was the definitive play that I was looking for. I don't understand what part of it could be called misleading or poorly worded.

You know, I've been mulling this over, and this really isn't the same as the play we were discussing a page or two ago. In this case play, the player is dribbling, and then ends the dribble more by palming or carrying than by stopping and holding the ball. What we were discussing previously was someone who was holding a ball after using her dribble. To me, applying this case play to the sitch we were arguing before is apples to oranges.

I just don't agree that it's as obvious in the play under discussion as it is in the case play. I also don't agree that the wording is clearly intended to cover any release of the ball toward the floor as a dribble. I also don't agree that Howard was discussing the general sense. I sent him a specific play. He answered it specifically. He's a pretty smart guy, and he knows the difference between specific and general.

Jurassic, I'm not so sure this is nonsense. I know a lot of the stuff on this thread is worthless, but this discussion is interesting. It points out that we can't rely on what seems like common sense. What seems so obvious to you and me is as clear as mud to Nevada and JAR, and other rules are equally ambiguous.

Officials in all sports need to learn to understand and follow the principles of submission (to how the rules tell us to call the game) and also of adaptation (to how things are in our areas). (Hmmm... I smell article...) It's possible that in JAR's association everyone calls things this way. Even if it's the only county in all of the Western Hemisphere that interprets it this way, it is how JAR should call it. Of course, he shouldn't be telling us that we're all wrong and he's right.

But it is interesting to look closely at the rules, to see the various interpretations of the various words, and to try to come to some agreement with each other about how to call the play. Words are the only tools we have, yet they can be so difficult. I'm intrigued.

The first page or two wasn't. The last 10 are absolutely ridiculous. The premise being argued is that passes or fumbles don't exist as per limited rules usage that ignores other similar rules language. Jmo but common sense seems to have flown out the damn window. This is nothing but a fairly easy, standard call being made difficult for no good reason.

2) Great. That'll cut the arguing to zero. Of course, if you use any of the thoughts or ideas from any of the posters in this thread, you'll give them the usual attribution found over there. Right?:)

The real question is, who will we get to play the part of JR in the movie version?

Top candidates so far:

http://erl.wustl.edu/images/mummy2.jpg
http://classic.mountainzone.com/clim...ry-old-man.jpg
http://www.agavemedia.no/bilder/artw...man-c-up-1.jpg
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/enterta...084848e301.jpg

I just caught this, but whether the ball hits the floor shouldn't be relevant. If you're going to call a violation before it touches the "dribbler," you would need to call it before it hits the floor. IOW, if he attempts to dribble, and pushes the ball towards the floor only to have it kicked by the defense before it hits the floor, you'd need to call the illegal dribble violation and give the ball to the defense.

Right?

No. ...Patient whistle waits for entire play.
Unreasonable reasoning.

How about this guy? Of course, JR would be in a "Lady Ram" uniform. :D

http://www.maxpreps.com/FanPages/Ima...5869f2b610.jpg