Double Dribble?

[a.f.sports]

Unsure if I made the right call last night. Situation: A1 has picked up his dribble, B1 slaps the ball and causes A1 to bobble the ball, A1 (without moving either foot) catches the ball in air and begins a new dribble. I called double dribble.

[daves]

If the slap dislodged the ball from A's hands, A is entitled to a new dribble.

[BktBallRef]

Based on what rule?

[thomasanderson]

9-3-5 A player shall not dribble a second time after his first dribble has ended unless he has lost control because of a bat by an opponent. Judging loss of control is crucial in this particular situation.

[BktBallRef]

If B1 bats the ball, it goes in the air and comes right back to A1, A1 now has control. Is he still entitled to a new dribble?

[crew]

i beleive i would allow another dribble, but i am having a hard time imagining the situation. i assume this is a judgement call by the official on whether the player lost control or not.

[daves]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
If B1 bats the ball, it goes in the air and comes right back to A1, A1 now has control. Is he still entitled to a new dribble?

I would let him have a new dribble because the batting of the ball made player A1 lose control.

[BktBallRef]

So, even if they ball doesn't get away from A1, and A1 doesn't have to move to retrieve it, the concensus is that we should allow another dribble?

[zebraman]

That's a tough one...but I think I'd allow a new dribble under the philosophy that B1 caused A1 to temporarily lose player control. If B1 bats it and it hits the floor before A1 gets it, we can definitely start a new dribble so why not the same if A1 catches it?

Z

[a.f.sports]

This situation was addressed at our association meeting, consensus of group said allow another dribble. Next time it happens I will allow dribble.

[Hawks Coach]

Initially I had a hard time with allowing a new dribble if the ball was already picked up and the bobble is slight. However, I also know that if B1 hit the ball free and it struck the floor, a new dribble would be allowed. It is not clear that this situation is any different - in both cases, B1 causes A1 to lose player control. In either case, i would recommend allowing the dribble because B1 caused a loss of player control, regardless of how slight that loss of control was.

[BktBallRef]

I was playing devil's advocate here, to some extent, on a slow Sunday afternoon.

I don't disagree with any of the replies, as long as player control is actually lost. However, there are situations in the case book where A1 is not considered to have lost PC, just because B1 touched the ball and it came loose. 4.43.3.A is an example. According to this play, we are to decide if PC was actually lost or if A1 simply allowed the ball to get away. I guess it's similiar to deciding if a player is attmepting to gain control of a fumble when he bats the ball to the floor or has he actually dribbled.

If PC is lost, then he can certainly dribble again.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
I was playing devil's advocate here, to some extent, on a slow Sunday afternoon.

I don't disagree with any of the replies, as long as player control is actually lost. However, there are situations in the case book where A1 is not considered to have lost PC, just because B1 touched the ball and it came loose. 4.43.3.A is an example. According to this play, we are to decide if PC was actually lost or if A1 simply allowed the ball to get away. I guess it's similiar to deciding if a player is attmepting to gain control of a fumble when he bats the ball to the floor or has he actually dribbled.

If PC is lost, then he can certainly dribble again.

Dang, Tony, I was about to jump in here and have you see a shrink to see if you had lost your marbles. You almost gave me a heart attack.

[Jeremy Hohn]

I know. I've had junior high coaches say that their player can dribble again when the defense bats the ball and it DOESN'T leave the dribbler's control!! HAHA!!!