Double Dribble???

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Citing NFHS rules but NCAA rules are the same.....

1) Casebook play 4.15.4SitD(a)-- violation because ball was touched twice in the air during the dribble before the ball touched the floor.

2) Imo, no. The ball was never loose nor nor did it get away from the dribbler, and the dribbler also never lost player control. Iow, it doesn't meet the definition of an "interrupted dribble" under rule 4-15-5

This is the correct ruling. The action of that player was an illegal dribble.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree...."into the air" is not referring to the general dribble but a specific action of batting the ball upwards during a dribble.

That is correct, and the action is allowed provided that it meets certain conditions.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

To fully grasp this, you must go back to the beginning of the game and follow how the rules changed. In the beginning, a player was only allowed to run if they were not holding the ball. There were no specifics on how they could move beyond just that they could not hold the ball. So, the dribble was "invented". Some clever chap figured out that he could do what was referred to as an "air dribble"...repeatedly batting the ball up without ever letting it hit the floor. This was ultimately viewed as unfair and it led the to rule requiring that the ball hit the floor after being batted the ball into the air. So, a player dribbling down the floor, can still, if they so wish, bat the ball upwards with the hand under the ball as long as it hits the floor before the next dribble.

Also correct and well explained. The "air dribble" was banned as if done by a tall player it did not give a short player a fair opportunity to make a play on the ball.

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.

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.
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?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As for this case, I'm calling it an interrupted dribble if there is any question. It was only a matter of luck that it came to a position where he could continue the dribble. The interruption was very short but it did deflect off the dribbler (just to a convenient position).

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

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.

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 IMMEDIATELY continued to dribble without missing a beat, hey,that's fine with me too.

Shrug.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

Hey, it's payday friday... couldn't be feeling 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.

Don't you think a knowledgable, well-respect, veteran like yourself owes it to the board to school us less fortunate, mis-guided souls that are just trying to get better & look to you for direction?


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 IN YOUR OPINION) and the dribbler also IMMEDIATELY continued to dribble without missing a beat, hey,that's fine with me too.

Shrug.

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 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...