Double Dribble???

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by cmathews

so following this logic, I can tap the ball with my right hand, then my left hit my left thigh, bouncing it up into the air again to my right hand, down to my right toe back up to the right hand then to the floor all the while moving down the floor.......ummmmmm I don't think so....it is illegal to touch the ball with each hand before it touches the floor....

No, that would be a kick....intentionally contacting the ball with the leg or foot.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

COMPLETE RUBBISH!!!
You just wrote above that a rule requires that a player must allow the ball to strike the floor after batting it into the air during a dribble. Touching it again prior to that would constitute an "air dribble" which you just noted was illegal. I cannot figure out how you could logically come to such a conclusion given what you stated immediately prior. Of course, your conclusion is incorrect.

No, touching it again is not what makes it an air dribble...the direction of the bat (upwards) makes it an air dribble.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Imagine a player attempting to split a double-team by using a variant of a crossover dribble. The offensive player is dribbling with his right hand with two opposing players come to trap him. He sees this and turns to his left as the ball rebounds up from the floor to his right hand. He now shifts the ball across his belly to his left hand and dribbles on the other side of his body while stepping past the two defenders. Do you believe that move is legal?

No, that would be a carry.

The limits of what I think might be feasably executable under my suggestion are very narrow....mostly to make the point that two contacts with the ball don't automatically mean it is an illegal dribble. It can mean that...perhaps in most cases...but not automatic.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Fortunate or not, the action was illegal since the ball did not strike the floor prior to being touched again. See the casebook play cited by Jurassic. I'd call this a violation everytime. It is not within the discretion of an official to not call a clear violation of the rules simply because he believes that the situation was strange.

Show me where it is required that an interrupted dribble is required to hit the floor. If it is ruled an interrupted dribble, the requirements of a dribble are suspended. A ball must only be "loose" after deflecting off the dribbler to be considered interrupted. We certainly have a deflection. As for "loose", show me a definition that excludes this case. I'm going to consider the ball loose ever so briefly when it deflects off of a part of a player's body when such contact was not intended.

The case Jurrsassic cited is, unfortunately, not actually supported by anything in the rules. The only thing in the rules regarding two hands is qualified with the term simultaneous. It is the general case that two hands touching the ball (with no regard to the timing of the touches) will be an illegal dribble but it is not the precise rule.

[Back In The Saddle]

An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble. (NFHS)

Notice there are two independent clauses here: "the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler" and "after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler". They are separated by "or" which indicates that either situation is sufficient to qualify as an interrupted dribble. To argue that it's not an interrupted dribble because the ball didn't "[get] away from the dribbler" is to ignore the other clause.

In the OP is the ball not "loose after deflecting off the dribbler"? The ball is not being held by any player, and is loose in that sense. It's also not under the player's direct control since it did not go to the floor where it was clearly intended to go. In that sense it is loose too. Loose does not imply any specific or minimum distance from the dribbler. Nor does loose imply any duration. Deflecting does imply some amount of change in direction of the ball, but doesn't imply a minimum amount. However, I submit that in the OP the ball deflected roughly 180 degrees from its original path, which was toward the floor.

For my money, this is an interrupted dribble as the ball was loose after deflecting off the dribbler, even though the result of the deflection was nearly the same as if it had hit the floor and he was able to get it back under control and continue his dribble seemingly without missing a beat.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Assuming my assertion is true leads to the implication that there is nothing in the rule that categorically prohibits touching the ball with both hands on the same dribble. The rules only prohibit touching the ball with both hands simultaneously (ends the dribble). It would be legal for a player to push the ball towards the floor with one hand and then deflect the ball with the other hand as long as both hands were both in contact with the ball at the same time.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

COMPLETE RUBBISH!!!
You just wrote above that a rule requires that a player must allow the ball to strike the floor after batting it into the air during a dribble. Touching it again prior to that would constitute an "air dribble" which you just noted was illegal. I cannot figure out how you could logically come to such a conclusion given what you stated immediately prior. Of course, your conclusion is incorrect.

A suggestion for added clarity: 4-15-4 f The dribble ends if the dribbler touches the ball a second time with either hand before the ball touches the floor.

Yes, this is specified in the case play, but I would like to see it mentioned in the rule book as well.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, touching it again is not what makes it an air dribble...the direction of the bat (upwards) makes it an air dribble.

So we agree that air dribbles are illegal, but we don't agree on what constitutes one.
A1 is being guarded by B1. A1 has just received a pass and has yet to dribble. A1 throws the ball UPWARDS over B1's head and runs around him. The ball is allowed to strike the floor and A1 catches it.
Legal or not?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, that would be a carry.

So what if the ball never came to rest in the hand. Say that the dribbler merely tapped the ball from his right hand to his left.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The limits of what I think might be feasably executable under my suggestion are very narrow....mostly to make the point that two contacts with the ball don't automatically mean it is an illegal dribble. It can mean that...perhaps in most cases...but not automatic.

VERY WRONG. The rule means exactly that. Two intentional touches during a dribble prior to the ball striking the floor equal a violation.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Show me where it is required that an interrupted dribble is required to hit the floor. If it is ruled an interrupted dribble, the requirements of a dribble are suspended. A ball must only be "loose" after deflecting off the dribbler to be considered interrupted. We certainly have a deflection. As for "loose", show me a definition that excludes this case. I'm going to consider the ball loose ever so briefly when it deflects off of a part of a player's body when such contact was not intended.

As you know loss of player control is the key element. It seems that most people are not considering the player to have lost control after he bounced the ball off his foot as it came up right to him and did not momentarily get away from the dribbler. But you can argue that if you wish.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The case Jurrsassic cited is, unfortunately, not actually supported by anything in the rules. The only thing in the rules regarding two hands is qualified with the term simultaneous. It is the general case that two hands touching the ball (with no regard to the timing of the touches) will be an illegal dribble but it is not the precise rule.

Why are you hung up on TWO hands? You need to focus on TWO separate touches.
The illegal touching could be done by one hand. A player could push the ball downward and forward with his right hand, but then quickly reach out with the same hand and deflect the ball to the side or pull it back to him before it contacts the floor. That movement is illegal as well.
I have no idea why you are attempting to confuse the issue with terms such as "general case" and "precise rule." The dribble is either illegal or it isn't. That's all.

[Adam]

Okay, the case play is quite clear. Violation

Originally Posted by Case Play

because the ball was touched twice by A1's hand(s) during a dribble, before it touched the floor.

However, the rule referenced (9-5) doesn't help at all. What rule are we looking for?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, the case play is quite clear. Violation However, the rule referenced (9-5) doesn't help at all. What rule are we looking for?

The case play should also reference 4-15-2.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So we agree that air dribbles are illegal, but we don't agree on what constitutes one.
A1 is being guarded by B1. A1 has just received a pass and has yet to dribble. A1 throws the ball UPWARDS over B1's head and runs around him. The ball is allowed to strike the floor and A1 catches it.
Legal or not?

Legal. The player released the ball, it hit the floor. What else could it be?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So what if the ball never came to rest in the hand. Say that the dribbler merely tapped the ball from his right hand to his left.

To accomplish that, the ball would have to have been batted into the air....violation.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

VERY WRONG. The rule means exactly that. Two intentional touches during a dribble prior to the ball striking the floor equal a violation.

By what rule? The only one that talks about two touches applies when the ball is batted into the air. If it is not batted into the air, it doesn't apply. The only other rule on the topic refers to simultaneous touching.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As you know loss of player control is the key element. It seems that most people are not considering the player to have lost control after he bounced the ball off his foot as it came up right to him and did not momentarily get away from the dribbler. But you can argue that if you wish.

"Most"? Interrupted dribble implies loss of control. Loss of control doesn't imply interrupted dribble. Your causality is backwards.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why are you hung up on TWO hands? You need to focus on TWO separate touches.
The illegal touching could be done by one hand. A player could push the ball downward and forward with his right hand, but then quickly reach out with the same hand and deflect the ball to the side or pull it back to him before it contacts the floor. That movement is illegal as well.

Again, by what rule?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I have no idea why you are attempting to confuse the issue with terms such as "general case" and "precise rule." The dribble is either illegal or it isn't. That's all.

And it isn't.

Do you, when a player is dribbling ensure that the dribbling hand maintains continuous contact with the ball? By your argument, it would be a violation if the ball ever had so much as a brief seperation from the hand.

[Nevadaref]

1. Good we agree that upward movement does not mean that the dribble is illegal. The example that I posed refutes your earlier statement about an "air dribble." Can we now agree that touching the ball again before it reaches the floor is the proper definition of an "air dribble?"

This is really as far as we should need to go as all other plays could be decided based upon that premise.

2. No, the ball need not be batted into the air. The player could simply knock the ball directly across his body to his other hand after it rebounds up from the floor.

3. You missed the point. The action is still DURING A DRIBBLE. The batting into the air just allows more time for the events to unfold. The case book clearly tells you that a player cannot touch the ball twice while it is in the air DURING A DRIBBLE before it strikes the floor. How high or how long the ball is in flight does not matter. To believe so is illogical and to attempt to put such restrictions upon play would be impossible.

4. As an official must observe the action and make decisions, I do not believe that my causality is backwards. An official watching the dribbler must determine if the ball escaped the control of a player. If the officials deems that to have occurred then there was a loss of player control. An official must first decide that the ball got away from the player before thinking that an interrupted dribble has occurred.

5. What rule? Try this one. 4-15 describes the legal movement of a dribble. If the action does not meet the provided definition then it is either an illegal dribble or not a dribble at all.

6. If you are saying that a player cannot allow a dribble to come up and contact his hand, have the ball separate from that hand, and then reach out and contact the ball again, then you are correct. That is an illegal dribble.

How small of a separation do I watch for? I call the obvious.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Good we agree that upward movement does not mean that the dribble is illegal. The example that I posed refutes your earlier statement about an "air dribble." Can we now agree that touching the ball again before it reaches the floor is the proper definition of an "air dribble?"

This is really as far as we should need to go as all other plays could be decided based upon that premise.

2. No, the ball need not be batted into the air. The player could simply knock the ball directly across his body to his other hand after it rebounds up from the floor.
.

And I consider that as into the air.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. You missed the point. The action is still DURING A DRIBBLE. The batting into the air just allows more time for the events to unfold. The case book clearly tells you that a player cannot touch the ball twice while it is in the air DURING A DRIBBLE before it strikes the floor. How high or how long the ball is in flight does not matter. To believe so is illogical and to attempt to put such restrictions upon play would be impossible.
.

And again, what rule in the rule book is that case based on? None of them. The case is also a case of batting the ball up an over the head of the opponenent...or into the air....not to the floor.

It's a matter of direction, even intent. There are certain actions intended to circumvent the basic rules that are, by interpretation, considered to be a violations. A ball that brushes a 2nd hand on the way to the floor is not one of them. That is not the intent and purpose of the rule....certainly not hitting a foot on the floor.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

4. As an official must observe the action and make decisions, I do not believe that my causality is backwards. An official watching the dribbler must determine if the ball escaped the control of a player. If the officials deems that to have occurred then there was a loss of player control. An official must first decide that the ball got away from the player before thinking that an interrupted dribble has occurred.
.

To determine control, you must first decide if the player is holding or dribbling the ball (the definition of control). If they are not, then, there is no control. Player control is not something you use to determine it was a dribble or not.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

5. What rule? Try this one. 4-15 describes the legal movement of a dribble. If the action does not meet the provided definition then it is either an illegal dribble or not a dribble at all.
.

An illegal dribble (as defined in rule 9) is dribbling a 2nd time after a first has ended. The terms which end a dribble are clear. This is not one of them so the dribble has never ended...this there is no illegal dribble.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

6. If you are saying that a player cannot allow a dribble to come up and contact his hand, have the ball separate from that hand, and then reach out and contact the ball again, then you are correct. That is an illegal dribble.
.

You've provided nothing that supports that. If the book doesn't provide that it is illegal, it is legal.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How small of a separation do I watch for? I call the obvious.

And that is my whole point. If the ball is pushed down with one hand and inadvertently hits the other hand on the way to the floor, it is not what the rule intended to address and is not "obvious". Officious, maybe, but not obvious.

[Nevadaref]

1. You keep referring to an inadvertant touch, while I have clearly stated intentional. Accidental contact has nothing to do with this situation, so please stop bringing it up in an attempt to confuse the issue.

2. Again rule 4-15 tells you HOW a player may dribble. If the player does not perform the ball movement in that described manner, then he is either dribbling illegally or not dribbling at all. What is listed in rule 9 is only one way that a player may violate. It is true that, and I have argued for this before, another article under 9-5 stating that it is also a violation to perform a dribble in an illegal manner would be wonderful, but since we don't have that we simply follow the play ruling from the case book under 4.15.

3. I'm not going to argue the sematics of player control any further. It is a judgment call anyway.

4. Test case:
How do you rule on this play, let's call it a "double-crossover".
A1 is dribbling with his right hand. As the ball rebounds from the floor to about the height of his waist he pushes the ball down diagonally towards his left knee. The ball is only in contact with his hand for a split second and does not come to rest. The ball moves through the air and comes near the player's left knee and he reaches out with his left hand and bats the ball diagonally downwards so that it strikes the floor near his right foot. During this action the defender B1 moves to his right following the first movement of the ball, but then is too slow to change direction and get back to his left as A1 changes the direction of the ball that way. A1 thus easily goes around B1 while continuing the dribble with his right hand.

No carry/palming and no loss of player control occurred during the entire sequence.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

COMPLETE RUBBISH!!!

That sums it up nicely.

After a player has batted/pushed the ball to start an individual dribble, that player can't touch the ball again with either hand until the ball hits the floor. If the player does so, it's a violation.That's been the rule.....oh....forever, and the definitive case book play has been around forever also.

Waste of time arguing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. Again rule 4-15 tells you HOW a player may dribble. If the player does not perform the ball movement in that described manner, then he is either dribbling illegally or not dribbling at all. What is listed in rule 9 is only one way that a player may violate. It is true that, and I have argued for this before, another article under 9-5 stating that it is also a violation to perform a dribble in an illegal manner would be wonderful, but since we don't have that we simply follow the play ruling from the case book under 4.15.

I was about to jump in again, but I'm glad I finished the thread first. This sums up simply the crux of the issue.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It's a matter of direction, even intent. There are certain actions intended to circumvent the basic rules that are, by interpretation, considered to be a violations. A ball that brushes a 2nd hand on the way to the floor is not one of them. That is not the intent and purpose of the rule....

On what do you base this OPINION?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Waste of time arguing.

Hold on there now, not so fast young fella. Nobodys arguing you should prove to the non-believers of the board beyond a reasonable doubt. And you sir, Nevada & whoever else is pushing this violation have yet to do so.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

After a player has batted/pushed the ball to start an individual dribble, that player can't touch the ball again with either hand until the ball hits the floor. If the player does so, it's a violation.

I think we're in unison on this point, BUT what if (in the calling officials judgement) in between the dribbler touching the ball twice (either hand) the deflection off the players foot in the OP was ruled an interupted dribble?

Facts: There was a deflection before the second touch because the ball struck the defenders body.

Judgment:
Official 1: The ball momentarily got away & took a lucky bounce plus the player had long arms regaining control... interupted dribble??

Official 2: The defender made a great attemp to steal the around the back dribble so the dribbler intentionally kicked back at the ball to avoid getting ripped... kick??

Official 3: The ball was touched by the hand twice before striking the floor... violation??

I think all 3 decisions have a ruling to support them depending upon the judgement of the official & how the play unfolds.
When it comes down judgement on a correct ruling the words:
deflection
momentarily
loose
are not clearly defined, well at least not to some of us.

Court is in session...