![]() |
|
|
|||
Most of the replies keep talking about an interrupted dribble ... when I first read the OP I first though of this being a pass and ended up being a pass to herself ... right?
That would make it a violation, forget the over and back. The way the OP read was it was an intentional act ... an interrupted dribble is not done on purpose. |
|
|||
Refresher Exam Question 57
2007 IAABO Refresher Exam, Question 57: While dribbling in the frontcourt, near the division line, A1 steps on the division line. Official rules this a backcourt violation even though he/she is not touching the ball. Is the official correct? Yes (Rule9-9-1)
|
|
|||
Quote:
This is a really good debate we have going... |
|
|||
Quote:
how is this a good debate? we are arguing whether its a violation because the ball is *not* touching the offensive player.....
__________________
in OS I trust |
|
|||
Look how many people we have stirred up on this one! Why does it have to be arguing....I gave that up for 2008...this is a debate!
![]() I'm sorry, but I don't think I have a violation if it's not a continious dribble.... Can anyone YOUTUBE this play so we can see the damn thing! ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
BTW, for the newbies, you would be wise to ignore most anything deecee writes.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith Last edited by BktBallRef; Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:40am. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Partners "stepping in" to your discussion... | rei | Baseball | 43 | Tue Feb 27, 2007 06:33pm |
Time back on clock? I said "No." | bgtg19 | Basketball | 3 | Wed Dec 06, 2006 06:05pm |
Illegal Blocks "in the back" | Rich | Football | 14 | Mon Oct 09, 2006 01:56pm |