where does it say that any of the contact with the leg or foot was intentional?????

OK, how about this clarification if it will make you feel better.

Imo it's a waste of time discussing a play that, to the best of my knowledge, has always been called only one way. Personally, I could care less what the non-believers think. Let 'em play the cunning linguist games. Hey, I really do hope that they do have the courage of their convictions and will not call a violation the next time that a player touches the ball again before it touches the floor after it left his hand on a dribble. That's fine with me.

And ....... if somebody honestly thinks that an interrupted dribble can occur when the ball never got away from the dribbler and the dribbler also <b>IMMEDIATELY</b> continued to dribble without missing a beat, hey,that's fine with me too.

Shrug.

Only for the purposes of demonstrating that two touches may not be illegal since there is no distinction regarding intent....if one of the touches is accidental and it is not an illegal dribble, then it can't be illegal if the touch is deliberate.
Casebook 4.15.4.D is CLEARLY refering to a situation where the ball is batted into the air (case:"bats the ball over the head of an opponent")....it matches perfectly with rule 4-15-2 (rule:"batted into the air"). I don't oppose that but I do oppose extrapolating 4.15.4.D to cover implied cases. 4.15.4.D explicitly sets up the situation as one of batting it up and over the opponent...not a general case of touching the ball twice.

Probably calling nothing since I'd be shocked that a player could successfully pull it off (it would take a true magician to actually make successful use of it) and also that can't justify blowing the whistle without using an inferred ruling from a case that clearly matches an unrelated situation. There is no direct provision of 4-15 that the player has violated.

What you suggest and claim may indeed be true...but the rules don't back you up without a lot of assumption and reading between the lines.

I just want to make certain there is no provision to rule interupted dribble as it does meet one of the requirements. It really comes down how each individual views the play.

Learning can never be a waste of time, well maybe except for the person teaching :D But with the status comes the responsibility. If I pass on that call in a crucial situation & it affects the game... I blame you for not doing your duty. j/k

I was really hoping you would address this part of my post -

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??

The spaces were left on purpose for you to address...

I see a lot of ball-handling tricks where I live and referee, including guys who can bat/push the ball towards the floor with one hand and then redirect the ball with either hand before it hits the floor, which in your reading of the rules would be legal. :confused:

While that may be the "standard", that is most definitely NOT what the book says. The only think the books says is that the ball can't be touched twice before it hits the floor when it is batted into the air (i.e. upwards as the casebook situation uses) and that it can't be touched with both hands simultaneously.

Again, it may be the intent and standard to not allow two touches...but the book does NOT back that up.

Are you referring to A.R. 75? A.R. 75 uses batting the ball over an opponent as the case play but the ruling is:

(1) Violation, because the ball is touched twice during a dribble, before the ball touches the playing court.

Which is the exact same verbiage used in the NFHS case book. (I'm sure Jurassic said the same thing earlier in this thread).

The reason it is a violation is stated clearly.

Nevada stated it clearly when he said that in absence of a clear rule, the case play should be enough. The fact that the case play doesn't perfectly match doesn't really affect this case, as the rationale in the case play clearly states the reason it's a violation, and it has nothing to do with the direction in which the ball was batted.

Snaqs - I understand that, but since every similar casebook play adds "and ball bounces away" to the OP it's hard to just say okay... afterall I'm a leader not a follower. You can't just pour piss from a boot & tell me it's raining :)

I think the second part of your post should be directed to a different poster, I fully concur with 2 touches prior to the ball striking the floor = violation (upward or downward).
What happens in between the second touching is judgement IMO.

My only issue is who's to say whether or not the ball striking the dribblers foot was an interupted dribble?

Did it not strike the dribblers foot?

After striking the foot did it not get away but favorably come back?

It would be GREAT if they made a case play for this particular situation ie:
During a dribble when the ball strikes the foot of the dribbler & returns to the players hands before striking the floor this should be ruled "a violation" OR "an interupted dribble"

You're right, I was confusing the confusions. :confused:
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming of inside jokes mixed with the occasional rules discussion.

I'm only pushing this to expose the hipocracy of those who demand exact language when it supports thier interpretation but claim inferential language is sufficient when it is needed to back up their interpretation:rolleyes:

The context being referred to is one where the ball is batted up (and, in this case, over an oppenents head). You can't simply ignore the context an apply the conclusion generally. If it was meant to apply generally, they wouldn't have created a context with an exception type of play. I'm sure you can find several rulings in the case book that, when taken out of context, lead to some interesting results.

As for the rule, why the clause "into the air" if what you suggest is true. If it were meant to be generally true, it would be worded something like: During a dribble, the ball may only touch or be touched by the hand(s) once between bounces. But, it doesn't say that.

Oh, I'm out the loop on that aspect.

Camp?
 

Which camp will you be attending - the D3 Super Camp in Richmond? If so, then maybe we'll be working together and get the call correct!

It's a judgment call that is made using the rule guidelines. To meet the criteria of an "interrupted dribble", the ball must get loose or get away from the dribbler. Iow, player control is definitely lost. If the player can <b>immediately</b> continue his dribble in perfect rhythm, I can't possibly see how anybody could judge that there was ever a loss of player control. But, others might judge that the same play actually was an interrupted dribble. As I said, shrug.....and good luck to 'em.

Little background. Back in the 80's iirc, the FED put in an absolutely stoopid case book play. The ruling was that if a player lost control of his dribble, he wasn't allowed to go get the ball and dribble again if the ball wasn't touched by another player in between. That was true even if the player didn't end his original dribble while getting the loose ball. If he did dribble after getting the loose ball, it was an illegal second dribble. That lasted one year and they yanked it and replaced it with the wording that we use now. They also issued a second case book play that has disappeared over time. In both of the case plays, they defined an "interrupted dribble" as a player not being able to immediately dribble because the ball got away from them. Afaik, that's still how the play should be adjudicated.

Yes sir, about an hour's drive from my house.