The difference is that the definition of travel specifically states "the pivot foot may be lifted but not returned to the floor" in applicable situations. Is there anywhere that mentions any form of "ball may not be pushed to the floor and then touched again" in the definition of a dribble or the description of an illegal dribble?

To me, it's a bit of a philosophy thing. There are a few times when a legitimate interpretation allows you to allow a play to continue, and an alternative interpretation would have you calling a violation. In this case, you [bold]could[/bold] call it a dribble as soon as it's pushed to the floor. Personally, I prefer to let action continue if the rules allow me to. In my view, it's not a dribble until it's touched after the bounce. 99.9% of the time, it wouldn't matter, because it's going to come back to his hand and your whistle isn't going to blow until it does just because of human reaction time. That one time, however, when he realizes it after he releases and lets it go to allow a teammate to recover, is the time I'm going to be glad I didn't try to judge his intent. I'd hate to have to explain to my assigner that I called it an ID because I [bold]knew[/bold] it was a dribble even though he never touched it.

Again, though, if the rules allow me to let play continue, I'd prefer to go that route.

Yes. 9-5 Player ends dribble, but it is a violation to dribble again.

Padgett started a thread about smartest plays. Some of the smartest plays I've seen involve players who know what the intent of the rules are with respect to when a dribble starts and how that differs from a potential pass.

Yes, a reasonable person *might* conclude the dribble "starts" when the ball is released towards the floor. Frankly you need to think about it more broadly to understand that what begins as a pass might turn out to be a dribble and vice versa. There is no judgment involved, just wait to see what happens next.

Basketball rule fundamental #19 -> the backboard [except thrower's backboard] is treated the same as the floor inbunds.

Case 9.5 situation [substituting word *floor* for *backboard* (per fundamental #19)] Player ends dribble. Throwing the ball against *floor* or an official constitutes another dribble, provided thrower is first to touch the ball after it strikes the official or the *floor*.

At first I thought you typed "inbuns" and I was going to make a comment about cheerleader's "backboards". :rolleyes:

No. I purposely screwed that word to inbund which in Hindi or Urdu means the embankment which contains the flow of the river or the *flow of the game*. [Hmmmm, would that be FIBA ball?]

...Or, it was dark and I couldn't see the proper letter to touch.

This is a good argument, but I think in this case it is clear that when the player threw the ball against the board, he did not intend it to be a dribble. It has already been documented that what started as a pass can become a dribble. What has not been documented is when what clearly starts as an illegal dribble can become a pass. If there is any doubt whatsoever about the player's intent, let it play out, as in the case above. But, I am picturing a play where A1 is isolated against B1, nobody else in the picture.
He leans one way, perhaps gives a head fake, then steps hard to the basket and pushes the ball straight to the floor. As written, my interpretation is when the ball strikes the floor it is a dribble. My idea is that the rule does not allow him to bail himself out if he suddenly remembers and yells, "Hey, B2, come get this pass!"

I am gonna grasp at straws a bit now.
9-3 note: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

In other words, if the dribbler pushes the ball to the floor, then steps on the line, it is an immediate violation, without any need for him to touch the ball again.

That's a rule, but it's goofy and subject to varying opinions. I think one must judge intent in that case to even begin to rationalize a call because *Player Control* comes into play, but touch again does not.

It seems to me that if this happens on the sideline [with a lone dribbler] is one thing, and if it happens near the endline where a dribbler drops a dime [behind him] to a following teammate, then steps outa bounds, it is quite another.

The rule needs help. ;)

Isn't that what this whole discussion is about, when you boil it down? Varying opinions and judging intent. Varying opinions is a constant we must deal with everywhere we go. Judging intent is a challenge, but it is something we must be prepared to do at times.

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. :)