4-15-4d change

[mick]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Here is another rule change that make it look almost like some of those rule guys think we occasionally bring up a good question.

Changed that a dribble ends when loss of control by the dribbler is caused by the opponent touching, or being touched by, the ball, rather than an intentional batting of the ball.

Illegal dribble?


Is it possible that this means that before the change I was right and JR was wrong? Either way, I like the change.

You sure that is a change and not a clarification for the folks that was calling the play incorrectly?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mick

You sure that is a change and not a clarification for the folks that was calling the play incorrectly?

It is listed under rule changes:

Changed that a dribble ends when loss of control by the dribbler is caused by the opponent touching, or being touched by, the ball, rather than an intentional batting of the ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mick

You sure that is a change and not a clarification for the folks that was calling the play incorrectly?

Mick,
My take was that the NFHS made an intelligent decision when learning that the rule as written did not match the accepted way that the game was being called. They simply changed the rule to match what people were doing on the court. Now they can still instruct us to call the game by the rules as written.

[Jurassic Referee]

Contrary to what JAR wrote in his original post, case book play 4.15.4SitD has not changed. Rule 9-5-3 hasn't changed either.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Contrary to what JAR wrote in his original post, case book play 4.15.4SitD has not changed. Rule 9-5-3 hasn't changed either.

That would be as I suspected.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Contrary to what JAR wrote in his original post, case book play 4.15.4SitD has not changed. Rule 9-5-3 hasn't changed either.

Actually what changed is rule book 4-15-4d. Nobody mentioned the case book.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually what changed is rule book 4-15-4d. Nobody mentioned the case book.

You're right. Rule 9-5-3 hasn't changed though.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're right. Rule 9-5-3 hasn't changed though.

I'm trying to keep up with all of this: are there any other rules that haven't changed?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're right. Rule 9-5-3 hasn't changed though.

But rule 9-5-3 had nothing to do with the original thread and has nothing to do with this change.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But rule 9-5-3 had nothing to do with the original thread and has nothing to do with this change.

Whatinthehell are you talking about? You need to go back and read the thread; specifically read my first post in that thread. Mick was arguing the same rule--9-5-3. We both were arguing the intent of 9-5-3, which rule hasn't changed.