Bounce pass to self

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

Nope, the definition of a dribble (4-15-1), which this action has to meet in order to be illegal, says "...or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times."

It doesn't say "towards the floor", it says "to the floor." So if the ball doesn't get there, then the action is not a dribble.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

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?

Sigh... Do people even read the prior posts in a thread before they comment?

Jim, this case play, which refutes your intended point, has been previously posted.

4.44.3 SITUATION A: A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and: (a) slaps the ball out of A1's hands; (b) touches the ball but does not prevent A1 from releasing the ball; (c) touches the ball and A1 returns to the floor holding the ball; or (d) touches the ball and A1 drops it to the floor and touches it first after it bounces. RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball remains live. In (c), a traveling violation. In (d), a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. Since the touching did not prevent the pass or try in (b), (c) and (d), the ball remains live and subsequent action is covered by rules which apply to the situation.

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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?

So was Howard on the committee at the time when dribble definition was written? Was he a committee member when the case plays that we've cited were published? Was he involved in the discussion and wording of these? What years did he serve? What years were these items written/discussed/published?

Do you have any idea about the timing of these events? If not, then the fact that someone was once on a committee provides no significant insight on these matters.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

You've answered my earlier question about which, in your opinion, carries more weight--Howard or the NFHS book.

And what, pray tell, did Howard say about that little case play which directly contradicts what he is saying? "...when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred."
Which case play? The one that appears on page 25 of the CURRENT NFHS case book (4.15.4 Sit A). You did have the courage to point this out to him, right?

Did he say, "I'm right, and that case book play is wrong." Perhaps he responded, "Oh, well then I guess that you have to call it by the book." Then again maybe he didn't say anything about it at all because you didn't ask him.

[just another ref]

All of sudden Nevada is BIG TIME on my team in all this. I really feel better now........I think

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You've answered my earlier question about which, in your opinion, carries more weight--Howard or the NFHS book.

And what, pray tell, did Howard say about that little case play which directly contradicts what he is saying? "...when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred."
Which case play? The one that appears on page 25 of the CURRENT NFHS case book (4.15.4 Sit A). You did have the courage to point this out to him, right?

Did he say, "I'm right, and that case book play is wrong." Perhaps he responded, "Oh, well then I guess that you have to call it by the book." Then again maybe he didn't say anything about it at all because you didn't ask him.

Good grief, so now this is about what a yellow-bellied, lily-livered sycophant I am? Give me a break... or as some on this board might say, STFU

[just another ref]

I managed to overlook this one earlier.

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

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.

This is one variation of the play I have been suggesting, I think. When you say begins a dribble you mean he pushes the ball to the floor and has the body language and movements of a guy starting a dribble as opposed to a pass or fumble. (this is not that hard to determine, is it?) This is when I think we have plenty of leeway to go ahead and make the call without another touch. If you have doubts about his intention, by all means wait, but, if not, make the call.

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?

On this one, I gotta go with the group. On this play clearly the player's original intention was not to dribble.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Quote:




So was Howard on the committee at the time when dribble definition was written? Was he a committee member when the case plays that we've cited were published? Was he involved in the discussion and wording of these? What years did he serve? What years were these items written/discussed/published?

Do you have any idea about the timing of these events? If not, then the fact that someone was once on a committee provides no significant insight on these matters.

Ouch. You know, I think you're right. It had never occured to me that somebody who wasn't on the committee when each individual rule and case were penned couldn't possibly have any clue, nor is that person uniquely qualified to offer an opinion.

Holy Crap, Batman! That means the dozen or so folks who are the committee now, and presumably have been there maybe 10 years are only qualified to answer questions about changes they themselves made. That must really complicate fielding questions from state offices.

So when they do get a question from a state office, do they phone old committee members to get authoritative answers? Do they keep a medium on retainer for when they need to talk to Dr. Naismith himself? No wonder they only field questions from state offices. Imagine the work involved in otherwise.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

That means the dozen or so folks who are the committee now, and presumably have been there maybe 10 years are only qualified to answer questions about changes they themselves made. That must really complicate fielding questions from state offices.

BITS, do some research and find out how it works BEFORE you flap your gums.

Members of the NFHS rules committee serve FOUR year terms. No one has been on the committee for "maybe 10 years." If you take out your books from 2005-06 and 2006-07 and look at the page with all of the committee members you will see that those whose terms expired in 2005 were replaced by someone who will serve through 2009.

There are eight sections made up of a select group of individual states. Each section has one representative on the committee. Which individual state that person comes from rotates inside the section.

I know all of this because this year it was Nevada's turn to send the representative for section 7 to the committee. When the 2007-08 rules book comes out, you will see that Mr. Whelchel from Arizona has been replaced by a guy from Nevada.

Now will this new member from NV have any particular insight into the drafting, discussion, selection of the final language, and/or intent of a rule change or case play which came out back in 2002? Of course not. He will know no more about that particular item by virtue of his being appointed to serve on the committee than you or I do. The best that he could do is ask his colleagues who may have some information to share depending upon from how long ago the specific item dates or perhaps there are some archived notes from the past meetings and discussions which he could obtain from the NFHS office. Although I doubt that if such exist that the NFHS is the body holding them.

Perhaps you think that he receives the secret red pill of omnipotent NFHS rules knowledge upon his selection to the committee!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps you think that he receives the secret red pill of omnipotent NFHS rules knowledge upon his selection to the committee!

Who gave you yours, Junior?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Quote:

So was Howard on the committee at the time when dribble definition was written? Was he a committee member when the case plays that we've cited were published? Was he involved in the discussion and wording of these? What years did he serve? What years were these items written/discussed/published?

Do you have any idea about the timing of these events? If not, then the fact that someone was once on a committee provides no significant insight on these matters.

Junior, whatinthehell has that got to do with anything? The man was on the NFHS Rules Committee at one team. He now serves as a state interpreter. He obviously has a background and credentials. You? You're just another goober voicing his opinion on a discussion board. Your opinion bears no more weight here than Old School's. You may think that you're omnipotent and you may also believe your own delusions of grandeur when you start your arrogant lecturing of other people, but that doesn't make you right. Just incredibly arrogant imo.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

JuniorSenior, whatinthehell has that got to do with anything? The man was on the NFHS Rules Committee at one team. He now serves as a state interpreter. He obviously has a background and credentials. You? You're just another goober voicing his opinion on a discussion board. Your opinion bears no more weight here than Old School's. You may think that you're omnipotent and you may also believe your own delusions of grandeur when you start your arrogant lecturing of other people, but that doesn't make you right. Just incredibly arrogant imo.

Hey, JR, look in a mirror. Everything that you just wrote also describes you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Who gave you yours, Junior?

All that I can do is read what's written in the case book.
I might happen to think that what it says is silly and disagree with it. I've certainly disagreed with other case plays in the past. I might even agree that Howard's ruling or method of officiating this play is better.

However, that's not the point. What's important is that when it comes to being on the court, seeing the play happen, and having to choose between calling how Howard says or what is currently published in the NFHS book, any NFHS official has to go with what's in the book. Even if I don't like it, the NFHS has instructed us to call the game by the rules as written. (You haven't forgotten your favorite mantra, have you? )

The fact is that my personal opinion doesn't matter, neither does Howard's, or even yours, JR. The NFHS told us that very clearly in a point of emphasis last year:

"Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules."

So until the NFHS changes what is in the book, Howard, yourself, Juulie, and I should all be calling it by the book, and additionally we should be advising any other officials to do the same.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So until the NFHS changes what is in the book, Howard, yourself, Juulie, and I should all be calling it by the book, and additionally we should be advising any other officials to do the same.

Does calling it "by the book" mean that we have to call it by your interpretation of what the book actually says though? Where may I read that Nevadaref's rules interpretations are the only correct rules interpretations in existence?

Sorry, Junior, that one might not fly when you're trying to claim to be the one and only true God. There are heretics out there.

[rainmaker]

Nevada, just to answer your question, even though I think it's ridiculous, yes, I mentioned the case play to Howard. He said it's not applicable to the situation we're discussing. He and I have discussed it two or three different times during this on-going ker-fuffle.

Apparently, YOU are the one who hasn't been reading posts carefully. I have discussed rules with him many times, and been corrected when I am wrong. I said that in at least one of my posts. It's not something that would be a problem for me. The only reason I was "worried about my schedule" (which was a joke, btw) (and which I said in one of my posts, btw) was that he might be annoyed that I was bothering him during his assigning work with silly and pointless little mis-applications of casebook plays. You didn't pick that up in my postings? Others did, which you would have noticed if you'd read them carefully.

and by the way, if state rules interpreters aren't appointed for the purpose of interpreting the rules, then why bother appointing them? If they have no authority, why ask them questions? Oh, right, you don't.