If it is grabbed before it hits the floor, I would think this would happen so quickly that it would be impossible to separate this from being stolen directly from out of the original player's hands. I would have to see it, but my first thought is this is a no call. But it A1 pushes an illegal dribble to the floor and it hits a foot, his own or another player's, I think it would still be an illegal dribble.

This is not my logic. It comes straight out of the books.

4-15-1: A dribble is is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats or pushes the ball to the floor......


This is directly supported by case play 4.15.4 SITUATION A.

.....when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.......


How much clearer could it be?

As opposed to out the window ? :)
Yo! Juulie !

Also, anyone without blinkers on could also find <font color = red>straight out of the books</font>....

4-15-3: The dribble may be <b>started</b> by pushing, <font color = red>throwing or batting</font> the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

4-31: A <b>pass</b> is movement of the ball caused by a player who <font color = red>throws, bats</font> or rolls the ball to another player.

4-21: A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when a ball unintentionally <font color = red>drops</font> or slips from a players grasp.

It's amazing what you can find if you use the <b>whole</b> rule book.

How much clearer could it be... <b>indeed</b>?:rolleyes:

What's your point?

My point is that you're continually trying to use wording from <b>one</b> definition to fit cases that are covered by other completely similar-in-wording rules definitions. It's called <b>tunnel vision</b>. My point is that you're completely ignoring the language of other sections of the rule book. My point is that you keep insisting that something <b>has</b> to be what you say it is instead of saying that it <b>might</b> be what you say it is. My point is you're trying to make a <b>definitive</b> ruling on plays that are straight judgment calls. My point is that anyone with any common sense at all is gonna wait a second and see the result of a play instead of guessing. My point is that most officials aren't smart enough or good enough to know exactly what every player intended to do on every play; you and Junior seem to be the all-knowing exceptions to that.

Need any more? In the 15 pages(to date) of this nonsense, I've probably made a few others.

Someone's been doing their homework.

The longer this goes on the siller it gets.

I'll go find some more gifs to keep the interest up.

That should be "sillier", silly.

OK, we'll play a gif game.

What current poster does this remind you the most of?

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/straight-jacket.gif

Um - this poster I saw in a poster store? :confused:

http://lebowskifest.com/images/Nixon...poster_new.jpg

If you can't tell the difference in these three definitions, let alone these three plays when they occur on the court, well then, I don't know what more to tell you.

And that's exactly what a veritable plethora...nay, a multitude.....of knowledgeable and experienced officials have been trying to tell you......for 15 pages.

I remain unswayed in my conviction on this matter, and will continue to do what I do. I encourage others to do the same, based on their own convictions. I think this thing is coming to a close. I see no place to go from here. I thank everybody for their input. While it is frustrating to argue a point that one might see as easy to understand, but others see totally differently, I hope there has been no hostility created here which carries into the future. I apologize for anything I said to anyone that they may have found offensive.

Not to throw fuel on the embers that remain of this fire, but this philosophy is the guiding star of "that guy." You know the guy I mean; he's the one who stands apart from the pack, doing his own thing, making his own calls, and nobody quite understands why. And frankly noboby knows quite what to expect him to call. You may not see him all that often, but you probably follow him up quite a bit. If you have coaches telling you "that guy" let us do it last week... Or "that guy" called xyz last time... Or, well, you get the picture.

Don't get me wrong, I admire your chutzpah in defending your position for 15 pages. I've been in your shoes before, and not done half so well.

But in the end, I think any official, newbie or the most experienced veteran, has to be able to set aside his personal reading of the rules and really examine why he thinks what he does when so many other quality officials disagree with his stance on a rule. It's part of the maturing process of a quality official. And I don't say that lightly; it's taken me 20 years to get past how the words are arranged on the pages of the rulebook and to see that sometimes they don't always square with what the rule is really trying to say. The written words are, at best, a good aproximation of the rules.

I wish you the best, I honestly do. But please do not encourage others to follow their convictions when they are at odds with the rules. The real rules. Not just their understanding of what the way the words are arranged is trying to say. We need fewer "that guy"s, not more.

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I was pleased and greatly relieved that when I discussed this play in person with several guys, after a minimal amount of wrangling, ALL of them had the same answer that I had. And, no, this was not to pacify me, because initially I did not even tell anyone which side I was on. I really think that at least part of this is overanalysis and a play which does not translate well from court to paper.

errrmmm.... M&M...?

Anyway, try this one. Here's a hint, he would have a diet caffeine free coke with that burger

http://www.aperfectworld.org/cartoons/squirrels02.png