And as I said, it seems clear that it's another case where the rule is worded badly. I don't think the rule is intended to include that single push when there is no more contact. I can't imagine that being the intent. it's ridiculous. Good grief...

How can anyone "judge intent" without seeing the end result of a play?

What you call "judging intent", I call "guessing".....or "mind-reading".

How many other nfhs violation rules require us to judge "intent"?

Intent to fake on a FT...intentionally going OOB...? any other?

off the top of my head--
-disconcertion
-thrower delaying going OOB to make a throw-in
-delaying return in-bounds
-kicked ball
-excessive elbow swinging


Some you judge immediately. Some, like disconcertion and delaying return in-bounds, you wait and see the play.

No. For this thread, judging intent seems only to be your premise of the illegal second dribble due to the release of the ball, but it is unsupported and contradicted by the books and by a lot of other smart fellers here.

Because only Jurassic, Padgett and dblref have crystal balls, intent of a player, mindset of a player is not something basketball officials often use. Yes, it's used for intentional fouls, intentionally leaving the playing surface, intent of the rules and maybe a few other places [I dunno], but we aren't really allowed to use intent, to be mind readers very often. It is not in our job description. If we start, commonly, attempting to do that we are over-reaching our authority. When we over-reach, we have probably violated some rule, for example Rule 2-7.

Rule 2-3 allows some leeway for officials to make certain decisions "not specifically covered", but we must be careful [ab]using it. R2-3 could be used to handle situations like game-time fires in schools, buzzers that get stuck, bleachers that fail, bats in the belfry....

Don't lose sight of the fact that if you are feeling like you are standing alone on an island, it may be because no other official wants to be there. :)

hmmm...I dunno, seems like only kicking includes the word "intentionally". I think all the others only allow us to judge the act, not the intent.

Aren't you judging the intent of the act re: disconcertion and the throw-in and return on-bounds delays?

Not disconcertion, except for when a player tries to fake an opponent into violating. Intent needed there I believe.

The second one maybe, although I doubt it...I can't even find it in the rule book. Which rule is it? Now I'm worried I'll see it on a test ('cause I know I won't see it in real life...)

1) R9-3-3--leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. You gotta judge "intent" on that one.
2)R10-3- purposely and/or deceitfully returning after being legally OOB. Again, gotta judge "intent" on that one too imo.

Yeah, the first one I had. I was focussing on violations, but you're right there are T's that involve reading intent.

Thanks for the references btw :)

Smart azz.:D

That wasn't for your benefit, which you damnwell knew.

When a player gets hammered as he tries to release the ball we must judge whether his intent was to shoot or to pass. In this case there is no end result to see. Furthermore, the intent and the end result of the play may have nothing to do with each other. A1 throws a long alley-oop intended for A2, but it goes into the basket.

Not really. You just look at what was happening at the time of the foul, where the ball ends up, etc... Anyway we're discussing violations which are (usually) much more black & white. No argument from me on that. Just be consistent. errr....if it's from behind the 3 pt arc it's 3 pts. Otherwise it's 2 pts. No intent at all.

Geeze, try to be polite and see what happens...??

The point was this rule is worded so that judging intent is not part of the equation, with good reason. With other rules, this is not always possible.

Say what?:confused:

You can't see if the end result was a dribble or a pass? Let me help you out. If it ends up being thrown or batted to another player, it's a pass. Sez so right in NFHS rule 4-31. That's the end result. And all you have to do to <b>see</b> the <b>end</b> result is to let the resulting play <b>end</b>.

What rule?

If you're talking about the definition of a "dribble", then I <b>still</b> completely disagree with you. You have to judge whether the dribbler intended to pass or dribble a second time after he ended his first dribble.

You're still completely ignoring the <b>fact</b> that the definitions of both a "dribble" and a "pass" allow for both to be started the exact same way--throwing or batting the ball.

JR apparently missed a couple of posts where we went off on another tangent about judging intent.

I have not ignored anything. The question here is when one can determine whether a dribble is a dribble. You say not until it is touched again, even though this is not documented. I disagree. I think we have about said it all.

With very many of the rules intent is not a factor.

The dribbling rule is one of them. If it went your way it would be illegal, by rule, to bounce pass after ending a dribble. Period.

I'm going to try to paint one more picture.

A1 and B1 isolated on one side of the court. The game is on tv, and no one else is even in the picture. A1 drives baseline and pulls up to shoot. B1 hustles to contest the shot, but slips and falls. A1 sees a clear path to the basket and momentarily loses his mind. He pushes the ball straight down to the floorand starts to take a step to the goal. Then, he quickly realizes his mistake, throws up his hands, turns his back, and yells, "Oh, shucks!" Am I the only one here that thinks this is a violation?

Mick, while I agree with the overall result of your interpretation, I don't think you can just substitute floor in for a case that is treated as a backboard play.

I have my doubts (particularly because the beginning of 4-15 is rather broadly worded), but for now I'm going to go with the crowd and say it's not a violation until A1 touches the ball on the upswing.

The problem with reading the rule literally is that a bounce pass, after ending a dribble, is technically prohibited.

Yes.

Do you see anyone else rushing in to agree with you? Has anyone agreed with you to date in this thread? Doesn't that maybe tell you something?

Yes, apparently.

That's the easiest question you've asked all week. The answer is yes.

Opponents backboard is the same as the floor. I don't see understand your problem.

J.A.R. -- I e-mailed my assignor who is also our state rules interpreter, who also used to be on the NFHS rules committee, the nationally renowned Howard Mayo, and he said,

"Two things that occur to me: A1 completes her dribble - drops the ball but does not touch it - legal - You could also rule that it was a bounce pass to a teammate or you could also rule a fumble."

In other words, it's not a dribble unless the player touches it after it has bounced on the floor. Notice that the word "intent" appears nowhere.

one last try
 

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.

With any luck, you'll be able to talk Old School into agreeing with you.:)

And way back in post #88, I cited two case plays, which stated the opposite. I think that you are better off having a slow whistle on these plays.

The two plays you refer to deal with a player whose first intention was clearly not to dribble. The plays I am trying to describe involve a player who undeniably is starting a dribble which happens to be illegal. A slow whistle is okay with me, on this play or any play, but I fail to see how a whistle when the ball hits the floor in the plays I described can be considered wrong. In any case, if you consider the two case play rulings to be opposite, how could either interpretation be totally wrong?

Case plays have been known to contradict each other. There are a couple of reasons for this.
a. When a new case play is added the editor and current members of the rules committee often don't make an exhaustive, or even accurate, search of existing play rulings which will be affected.
b. As the years go by the committee members change and these individuals have different opinions on certain situations. When a new group of individuals adds a new case play, it may not match up with what was previously written.
c. We know what year rule changes were made, but it is more difficult to pinpoint the year in which certain case plays were first published. This makes it nearly impossible to know which one should have priority when they disagree. As the years pass, no one other than MTD, can tell you which came first.
d. The game evolves and certain actions that once were rare become common. Players use different tactics and the officials and rules makers must learn to cope with them. Sometimes the older language in the books isn't well-suited to handle the newer practices.

You have certainly found something in one of the books published by the NFHS which obviously supports your position. However, it is possible that the author of that case play did not intend it to be used in a wider context. That author may not have envisioned what an official should do if a player in this situation were to bounce the ball between his legs to a trailing teammate.

My whole argument is not based on a case play, but on the definition of a dribble: a player.......pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

When the ball hits the floor, that can be considered a dribble whether it touches the player's hand again or not. What it the defender slaps the ball out of bounds on its return flight straight up toward the illegal dribbler's hand?
You gonna give the ball back to the offense, citing "That might have been a pass."

That's a legitimate question. That and what if the defender fouls the offensive player during this same time frame (the time between after the ball has struck the floor, but prior to the offensive player touching it again)?

Certainly there is a need to know the exact point at which the violation occurs. The case play which you have cited provides the best clarification which I have seen. Of course, player control is of primary concern. If at any point the official deems that player control has ceased, then there is no longer a dribbler.

I can create a scenario in which a player who has already dribbled tosses the ball out in front of him several feet and then takes off after it, but before reaching it an opponent fouls this player. What should an official do?

I appreciate your efforts but I think the play I have been describing differs greatly. When the phrase "drops the ball" is used, we must indeed wait to see what happens next.

If you get a chance, e-mail this one to him and see what he says:

Player A1 forgets he has already used his dribble. He pushes the ball straight down to the floor. Defender B1 slaps the ball out of bounds on its return flight straight up toward the illegal dribbler's hand?
Would you give the ball back to the offense citing "That might have been a pass."??

If he tosses the ball several feet out in front, I think anyone would assume it was a pass attempt and wait to see what happens. In this case, I would think the foul certainly would be the call.

In past documentation that I am familiar with NFHS has treated "dropping" the ball to be a controlled, purposeful action by a player. (For example, see case play 4.44.3 SitA (d) which I just cited) When speaking of a fumble the NFHS uses the word "slips" to mean accidental loss of control.

Of course, "drops" is NOT one of the ways listed in 4-15-3 to start a dribble. (I've debated this before with BktBallRef as it applies to one of his backcourt scenarios.) However, 4.44.3 SitA (d) tells us that a dribble may be started in this manner as the ruling clearly states that this action is "a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor."

Ok, but what if there was no other teammate anywhere on that half of the court? Similar to a play that you proposed earlier in this thread. ;)

My point is that officiating of plays cannot be reduced to writing in a book. A living person must observe the action on the court and use quality judgment to make whatever decision is appropriate for the given situation. That is the art of officiating.

You could think that he had a hallucination. The point I have tried all day to make is that if you are dealing with a remotely gray area, by all means let it play out. But the fact is, the vast majority of the time, when a player starts a dribble, it bears virtually no resemblance to anything that might be construed as a pass. Having met this airtight criteria, I have no problem sounding the whistle when the ball hits the floor.

And nobody in the world agrees with your point. You're still contradicting yourself constantly also by saying "let it play out" while you keep insisting <i>ad nauseum</i> on advocating <b>NOT</b> letting it play out. And you're also still refusing to acknowledge that the language used in the definition of a "pass" uses the exact same airtight criteria as that of a "dribble".

And I see that you've changed your cute l'il tag line to a possum and me also. Maybe you should change it to a possum and the <b>world</b> though. That's because the whole damn world disagrees with you.

Don't let any of the above stop you though. Continue continuing. :rolleyes:

BTW there's a typo in his quip. :D

It's a a cute l'il typo though.

How'd that get there? I'm going back to the original quote. Gus and Woodrow shouldn't have to be dragged through all this mud.

You consider it contradictory when I am saying that not all plays are alike. Forget definitions for a minute. You mean to say that a player putting the ball on the floor to blow by his man to the basket and a player throwing a pass to a teammate look the same to you?

There's a typo in your typo comment. :D

Nope.

I stutter.

That must cause confusion when you b-b-b-b-b-b-blow your whistle. :D

Please: let's try to stay on-topic, and leave the Larry Craig jokes for another thread. :D

I thought I posted this yesterday, but now I can't find it. I asked our local commissioner, who is also our state rules interpreter, who was at one time on the NFHS rules committee, about this debate, and here's his reply.

A1 completes her dribble - drops the ball but does not touch it - legal - You could also rule that it was a bounce pass to a teammate or you could also rule a fumble.

That seems pretty clear to me. It's not a dribble, unless she touches it again, after the bounce.

Post #127 on the page before this.

If you rule it a fumble, it is still not a violation if she does touch it again after the bounce. This says to me that another touch, in and of itself, is not the determining factor for what is a dribble. If we must determine what is a pass and what is a fumble, why is it unthinkable that we can determine what is a pass and what is the start of a dribble?

I know I risk getting OS'ed for this, but it's too funny to pass up.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5oU1l7mbTuQ

I'm sorry, but this is as clear as mud to me.

Of course I don't know what you asked but I suspect you could have worded it to get back a simple yes or no, as opposed to this.

Not that I'm waiting for your guy's answer to validate my opinion or change my mind of course. Just not seeing this as a clearcut response.

It's unthinkable because <b>you</b> want to call a violation without waiting to see if it actually was a pass, fumble or the start of a dribble.

Note the "you" and not the "we".....

My understanding of what Howard meant (and remember, I know him, and I've been arguing rules with him for years), is that you can't tell what it is until you see what happens next. So it's not automatically a dribble or a pass or anything. You have to wait and see.

But just to be sure I'm right, (remember, I've been arguing rules iwth him for years, and I don't always understand him correctly!!) I'll risk annoying him just as he's assigning me all the great games I want, and e-mail him again and double check.

I posted this yesterday. Perhaps you did not see it JR.

What it the defender slaps the ball out of bounds on its return flight straight up toward the illegal dribbler's hand?
You gonna give the ball back to the offense, citing "That might have been a pass."??

I'm not JR but I do play one on TV.

The answer is yes. I think you originally posted the question as B1 steals the ball. In that case it's B's ball.

I simply don't get this.

I saw it. It wasn't worth responding to then and it isn't really worth a response now either.

If it'll make you happy though.......:rolleyes:

If <b>any</b> player slaps a live ball OOB, the ball is dead and the non-violating team will get the ball OOB at the closest spot to the violation for a throw-in. Do you need me to cite the rule numbers for that also?

So in a nutshell: A dribble is not a dribble until it returns from the floor to touch the dribbler's hand again.

There is nothing in any book which states this directly.

Case book plays vary from one case to the next on whether the second touch is needed to complete the play.


Can anyone dispute this?

no longer alone
 

Tonight we had our sign up meeting. I posed the following question for 5 guys:

A1 has used his dribble. He stands holding the ball. He forgets and pushes the ball to the floor. Specifically when does an illegal dribble violation occur?

a. when it leaves his hand
b. when it hits the floor
c. when it hits his hand for a second time
d. some other time

First guy shrugged. "I don't know. When it hits the floor, I guess."
Second guy said, "I don't know, good question."
The other three guys were in a group. One immediately said, "When it hits his hand." Another shook his head. "No, it would be before that, when it hits the floor." The remaining guy merely nodded. The "hits his hand" guy and the "good question" guy contemplated briefly and then agreed that it would indeed be when it hit the floor.

The thing I got from all these guys was an overriding "never thought about it what difference does it make" sentiment. This supports the idea which someone posted (a hundred posts ago) that if the call is recognized when the ball hits the floor, by the time the whistle sounds, it would most often be back in the dribbler's hand anyway. With all this in mind I am going to pay attention to this call this year and try to notice, if possible, when the official starts to make the call.

No matter how crazy one may be perceived to be by one's surrounding group, there is certainly some degree of security in numbers.

Well, it doesn't matter how many agree, it matters who they are and what their authority is. The question of when the violation occurs isn't decided by majority. On the other hand (depending on which one was holding the ball I suppose), if everyone in your area calls it that way, you have to, too. On the third hand, tell me where that is so I can remember not to work there.

I plucked this from a seven page discussion we had about a different illegal dribble situation last year. Even though it is taken slightly out of context, I find it startlingly significant.

You're becoming startlingly scary, going back a year to find a statement to take out of context to try and bolster your fantasy. Let it die. Bottom line...no one here agrees with you.

I'm sure that he's a nice guy, but I've never understood this hero worship of Howard Mayo. FWIW my state rules interpreter is a current member of the NFHS rules committee. That doesn't mean that he knows the answer to every rules question or that anyone has to agree with what he says.

BTW what Howard wrote above about calling this a fumble is incorrect. The player in question did not lose control of the ball accidently. Therefore this doesn't meet the definition of a fumble. In this case the player purposely dropped the ball. As I stated in an earlier post the ruling for case play 4.44.3 Situation A part (d) tells us that this is, in fact, the start of a dribble.

1) There is only one God and that is I- Nevadaref. All others are false.

2) Sorry, God Junior(hereafter known as Junior), but I disagree with you. That makes me a heretic. :eek: Howard didn't call it a fumble. He said that it <b>might</b> a fumble. I acknowledge that you are omnipotent and all-knowing.......but to us mere mortals, when a player <b>drops</b> the ball, we have to judge whether that drop was accidental or not, and then if we do rule it as being deliberate,we have to additionally judge what action was started by the drop. Depending on our judgment, we then <b>may</b> rule it to be a fumble, or we <b>may</b> rule it to be a pass, or we <b>may</b> even rule it to be the start of a dribble. The only two officials in the world who actually <b>KNOW</b> what that player's intent was as soon as the ball has left his hands seem to be JAR and Junior. You're both better men than I am, Gunga Din.

I was simply looking for some evidence relating to making a call on what is a dribble as opposed to a pass by seeing it. This statement, from Tony, no less, fit the bill quite nicely.

"I can't believe that you and Woody truly believe that the officials on this board can't judge the difference in a dribble and a pass."


You have continued to say you can't be sure it wasn't a pass. Sometimes you can be sure if you see the play. According to your logic a player trapped in the backcourt could "begin a motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball," throw the ball straight up in the air, and retrieve it and start a new dribble, because "that might have been a try."

Because I took the trouble to find it, here's the link

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...ake+a+judgment

I think that there are in fact 2 different questions here, and that we can distinguish them. Let's assume that we are indeed talking about an illegal dribble, and that the official judges it to be so, and ask:

1. When does an illegal dribble violation occur?
2. When is an official in a position to judge that an illegal dribble violation occurred?

In that context would the answer to 2 be (c), and the answer to 1 be (a)?

Rationale: The violation occurs when the illegal dribble begins, but we aren't usually in a position to judge that until we know that it's a dribble and not a fumble, pass, etc.

you know, looking at the rule book again, and trying to remember back to the dark ages when I studied formal logic, I'm wondering about carefully examining the words used.

The book says that a dribble is ball movement that yadda, yadda, yadda...

It does not say that all ball movement that yadda yadda yadda is a dribble.

Is that significant?

I mean, suppose you said, "A cat is a mammal that has four legs, pointed ears, and eyes that glow in the dark." Could you then say "Look, it's a mammal, has four legs, pointed ears and eyes that glow in the dark so it must be a cat?" Well, no! It might be a lemur, certain types of dogs, and so forth and so on.

Just because a dribble is a certain type of movement doesn't mean that all of those types of movement are dribbles, does it?

Hard to argue with your logic, but, I suppose that I still kind of tend to combine the two questions. My idea is by the time the ball touches the floor, usually the official should be able to judge whether it was a dribble and not a pass or a fumble. This goes hand in hand with the definition of a dribble: "a player.....pushes the ball to the floor...." This definition does not mention the ball being touched after being pushed to the floor.

My idea here is that you are now asking "How do you know that the animal on the cat food commercial was not a lemur?"

My answer is "Well, maybe I don't with absolute certainty, but it sure looked like a cat to me. Must we have a zoologist perform a dna test before I can say it is a cat?

The thing is, there's no need to make this judgment. Once the ball either returns to the bouncer or doesn't, judgment is removed. Yes, there are times when we need to judge intent. This isn't one of them.

I think this is true 99 percent of the time. But, that one time when the defender knocks the ball out of bounds two inches before it touches the illegal dribbler's hand, I think you have to call the first violation first.

Silly monkeys

My point is that waiting for the result allows you to determine whether it was a dribble or not; removing the need for judgment on this play. You can simply wait about a quarter second and the result tells you everything you need to know.

The dribble may start when the player releases the ball (this definition tells us when a player must lift his pivot foot prior to dribbling in order to avoid traveling), but it doesn't become a dribble until he touches it again.

In old Iowa girls' rules, back when they played 6 on 6 "half court" basketball and were only allowed to bounce (dribble) the ball twice, the start of the dribble was defined differently. By definition, the dribble started when the player began pushing the ball towards the floor. It was not necessary to actually release the ball prior to lifting the pivot foot, only to begin the pushing motion towards the floor. By your definition, an illegal dribble would then occur if a player, who had already used her dribble, began to push the ball towards the floor: regardless of the result of that push. Yet it seems absurd.

Nope that's clearly not what I'm asking, and you clearly have no concept of the use of logic, formal or otherwise. Nobody cares what the creature on the cat food commercial is. People do care whether all mammals are cats.

In the case we're discussing, we're trying to figure out what the rules committee means, not what feels right to us. They say that a certain type of motion is the beginning of a dribble. They don't say that that type of motion can only be the beginning of a dribble. So I don't see how you can say that, when they don't.

This just in, for those who have some clue of the clout that Howard Mayo pulls in Fed rules world. Yea, he's got his faults, I know that as well as anybody. But his rules interpretations do carry a lot of weight.

Juulie:

Item C would be a violation.

Howard


-----Original Message-----
From: Juulie Downs <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 9:49 pm
Subject: Re: definition of a dribble


Howard --

A1 has used his dribble. He stands holding the ball. He forgets the sitch and pushes the ball to the floor, as if to start a dribble. Specifically when does an illegal dribble violation occur?

a. when it leaves his hand
b. when it hits the floor
c. when it hits his hand for a second time
d. some other time

That's how I'm calling it, and I recommend everyone else does, too, unless your interpreter specifically says otherwise. And even then, I'd argue with him/her for a while.

This is the problem I have. Is this written anywhere? If so, I would like to see it.

No, it isn't. That's the point. No where does it say an official must use judgment here; see the result.

If the actual result of an intended pass can be an illegal dribble, it makes sense that the actual result of an intended dribble can be something else (a steal, a pass, etc.) There are so multiple reasons a player will release the ball towards the floor, so we have to have some way of determining which is which. As I stated before, if the rules allow me a reasonable reason to continue play without a whistle, that's the interpretation I'm taking.

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

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.