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...

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

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.

:( 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.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.

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.

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

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

I managed to overlook this one earlier.


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.


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

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. :eek:

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

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! ;)

Who gave you yours, Junior?

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 <b>right</b>. Just incredibly arrogant imo.

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

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.

Does calling it "by the book" mean that we have to call it by <b>your</b> 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.:eek:

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.

Hello...mods?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/inside-gif/lock/lock1.jpg

Why is the ruling in 4.15.4 Sit A not applicable to the play posed by JAR? :confused:

It seems to clearly cover the situation of a player attempting to dribble a second time.

What do you think is ridiculous about the case play?

JR, aka Junior, could you please leave me out of this one. I got no comment and have stayed away. Perhaps you should do the same thing and it will die a lonely death. 240 posts over something so silly.

where's that one post you had where you prayed to make it stop. That would be perfect here.

I concur....