Double Dribble???

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It says so explicitly in the rule book. The ball cannot be contacted twice by either hand before returning to the floor.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[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?