I agree with you, but the logic which tells JAR he needs to call an illegal dribble violation as soon as the dribble starts precludes any distinction between whether it touches the floor or not. I say wait until the "dribble" returns to the hand of the dribbler, he says it must be called even if the defense swipes the ball before it hits his hand. If he's going to do this, he has to call it even if the ball is kicked or swiped before it hits the floor.

What was I thinking? Of course Deibler is the right answer!

He not sayin' that to me. He's only sayin' that to listeners. ;)

Rainmaker, the problem is that the rules committee doesn't have your command of logic or your writing skills.

If it looks like a duck, etc.

The real question is "If a player erroneously begins a second dribble, can he just let the ball bounce by itself until someone picks it up and pretend it was a pass or a loose ball?"

If the rules are unclear, use the duck principle. If it looks like an illegal dribble, smells like an illegal dribble, and quacks like an illegal dribble, call it.

I think an appropriate analogy would be when a player goes up for a shot, but can't get the shot off, so let's the ball fall to the ground to pretend he was dribbling. Do you wait for the player to touch the ball again, or do you just call a travel?

By definition, I thought it could have been a bad pass, ...so I pass until more happens.

What the rules say and what is often practiced are sometimes different. This is one of those cases.

I'm with Nevada on this one. The dribble begins the moment the player pushes the ball towards the floor. Sometimes, we can't tell....we give A1 the benefit of doubt and delay judgement to see where the ball goes to make the judgement of whether it was a pass or a dribble. However, it is what it is the moment it leaves the players hands. Sometimes you can tell, sometimes you can't and have to wait.

In the case of the ball that is kicked before it returns to the hand, I have an illegal dribble...it happend first. You're forcing the defender to defend illegal actions and penalizing them for doing so if the kick is called. By allowing the illegal dribble and calling the kick means the offense gets an advantage...the defense has to choose to play the ball and risk a foul or violation or depend on you to blow a belated whistle for the illegal dribble.

This specific play has happened to me, and I waited until the ball was retouched.

You're not forcing them to defend illegal actions if the push isn't illegal until it touches the hand again. How do you know it wasn't just an errant bounce pass? You don't. The problem isn't our interpretations. The problem is the wording in the book, and knowing what the rules committee wants. I mean, Howard was on the rules committee for pete's sake, and he says it's not a violation until it's touched a second time. So what was the intention of the committee over all?

I'm thinking about going out on Halloween in a Jon Deibler costume. They're already out at your local WalMart. Aamof, Deibler and SpongeBob SquarePants are running almost neck to neck as #1 in retail sales, with Jon currently holding a slight advantage.

It's true, it's true........

Oh, my ! ...Camron, too. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tr...smiley-056.gif

He's a very good ref, mick. One small mis-interpretation doesn't mean diddly squat.

I know the obvious.
But thanks anyway.

Howard just called me. On the phone. He said, "It's not a violation until the player touches it again." If the player starts to push the ball to the floor, I asked, but then realizes that it's a mistake, and doesn't touch it again, "It's not a violation."

Now, y'all can keep arguing, but that's what Howard says. I'm doing it his way. YMMV.

Howard is wise beyond his years.

Did you take the opportunity to remind him you had it right all along...and Camron didn't...and oh btw you've got some open dates if he needs to suddenly reschedule some games now...and oh btw Camron did have it wrong...