The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Double Dribble??? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/44847-double-dribble.html)

Raymond Thu May 29, 2008 02:04pm

Double Dribble???
 
I was on the sideline the other day during pick-up ball and the following play happened:

A1 (about 6'4" with extremely long arms) grabs a long rebound and starts to dribble to push the ball up the court. His first dribble is with his right hand then on the 2nd dribble he attempts to dribble behind his back from his right hand to his left hand but the ball his left heel and comes straight up behind him. He reaches back with his left hand (remember his long arms?) and continues his dribble without missing a beat.

Is this a double dribble? One of my buddies on the sideline immediately turned to me and asked the question and I didn't have an answer for him. I haven't gone to check the rulebooks yet.

Adam Thu May 29, 2008 02:12pm

Pretty sure it's an "illegal dribble," but I'll have to check my book for the rule reference.

Raymond Thu May 29, 2008 02:22pm

I guess by NCAA rule 4-21 it would be a illegal/double dribble:

Art. 3. During a dribble, the ball may be batted into the air, provided that it is permitted to strike the playing court one or more times before the ball is touched again with either hand.

So my question is how many of us would have called it in a real game? And say a player is just standing still dribbling the ball and one of his/her dribbles went off the top of his/her foot and they continued to dribble. Would we call a double/illegal dribble?

Ch1town Thu May 29, 2008 02:35pm

Not understanding this guys :confused:
When did A1s dribble end?

Raymond Thu May 29, 2008 02:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
Not understanding this guys :confused:
When did A1s dribble end?

Ch1, per the NCAA rule it is a violation b/c of the italicized portion cited below:

Art. 3. During a dribble, the ball may be batted into the air, provided that it is permitted to strike the playing court one or more times before the ball is touched again with either hand.

Ch1town Thu May 29, 2008 02:52pm

With all due respect, that rule is about "batting a ball in the air" during a dribble.
I didn't see where that had anything to do with your OP :confused:

I was under the impression that he dribbled once, went behind the back (give it to a guard) & the ball hit his heel, then he just continued the dribble :confused:

Raymond Thu May 29, 2008 03:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
With all due respect, that rule is about "batting a ball in the air" during a dribble.
I didn't see where that had anything to do with your OP :confused:

I was under the impression that he dribbled once, went behind the back (give it to a guard) & the ball hit his heel, then he just continued the dribble :confused:

In the rule book "batting a ball in the air" is the definition of a dribble.

4-21.Art. 1. A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats, pushes or taps the ball to the playing court once or several times.

Ch1town Thu May 29, 2008 03:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
In the rule book "batting a ball in the air" is the definition of a dribble.

4-21.Art. 1. A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats, pushes or taps the ball to the playing court once or several times.

Not trying to nit pick, just want to understand this. Beginning a dribble by batting the ball to the playing surface isn't batting the ball in the air. I think we're discussing two different situations here.

Ummm calling Nevada come in Nevada...

Raymond Thu May 29, 2008 03:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
Not trying to nit pick, just want to understand this. Beginning a dribble by batting the ball to the playing surface isn't batting the ball in the air. I think we're discussing two different situations here.

Ummm calling Nevada come in Nevada...

The space between his hand and his heel would be considered "air", correct? ;)

It's still a situation in which is A1 has already begun his dribble and he touches the ball twice with either hand before it strikes the floor. That's what makes it an illegal dribble.

But as I asked before, how many of us would call a violation in this situation? I don't know that I would, especially with how fast the play happened.

Ch1town Thu May 29, 2008 03:33pm

Still don't get it... casebook play perhaps?
Out of curiousity is there any rule support to have an interupted dribble?


At any rate, I won't be making that call. Play on player!

Camron Rust Thu May 29, 2008 03:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
The space between his hand and his heel would be considered "air", correct? ;)

It's still a situation in which is A1 has already begun his dribble and he touches the ball twice with either hand before it strikes the floor. That's what makes it an illegal dribble.

But as I asked before, how many of us would call a violation in this situation? I don't know that I would, especially with how fast the play happened.

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

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.

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).

Jurassic Referee Thu May 29, 2008 04:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
1)Still don't get it... casebook play perhaps?

2) Out of curiousity is there any rule support to have an interrupted dribble?


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

cmathews Thu May 29, 2008 04:51pm

Quote:

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. 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.

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.

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).


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....

Adam Thu May 29, 2008 05:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmathews
....it is illegal to touch the ball with each hand before it touches the floor....

...or twice with one hand.

Nevadaref Thu May 29, 2008 06:01pm

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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. :confused: 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?

Quote:

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 Thu May 29, 2008 06:24pm

Quote:

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 Thu May 29, 2008 06:40pm

Quote:

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. :confused: 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 Thu May 29, 2008 06:50pm

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 Thu May 29, 2008 06:51pm

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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. :confused: 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 Thu May 29, 2008 07:03pm

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 Thu May 29, 2008 07:17pm

Okay, the case play is quite clear. Violation
Quote:

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 Thu May 29, 2008 07:39pm

Quote:

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 Thu May 29, 2008 08:42pm

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
Quote:

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?
Quote:

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 Thu May 29, 2008 09:09pm

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 Thu May 29, 2008 10:21pm

Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 Fri May 30, 2008 03:27am

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 Fri May 30, 2008 05:20am

Quote:

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 Fri May 30, 2008 07:12am

Quote:

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 Fri May 30, 2008 07:48am

Quote:

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?

Ch1town Fri May 30, 2008 09:28am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Waste of time arguing.

Hold on there now, not so fast young fella. Nobodys arguing :confused: 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. :D

Quote:

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...

cmathews Fri May 30, 2008 10:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Jurassic Referee Fri May 30, 2008 10:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
Hold on there now, not so fast young fella. Nobodys arguing :confused: 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 <b>IMMEDIATELY</b> continued to dribble without missing a beat, hey,that's fine with me too.

Shrug.

Camron Rust Fri May 30, 2008 11:08am

Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Ch1town Fri May 30, 2008 11:16am

Quote:

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 <b>IMMEDIATELY</b> 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 :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...

Raymond Fri May 30, 2008 11:33am

Quote:

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. :confused:

Camron Rust Fri May 30, 2008 11:44am

Quote:

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 Fri May 30, 2008 11:54am

Quote:

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.

Adam Fri May 30, 2008 12:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
Hold on there now, not so fast young fella. Nobodys arguing :confused: 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. :D

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.

Ch1town Fri May 30, 2008 12:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells
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"

Adam Fri May 30, 2008 12:49pm

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.

Camron Rust Fri May 30, 2008 01:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
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.

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.

Raymond Fri May 30, 2008 01:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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:

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

Lcubed48 Fri May 30, 2008 02:35pm

Camp?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
But I'm probably with you concerning "Play on..."; I would file this under "obscure rulings". It was the first EVER I saw this happen. Which of course means it will happen again next month when I go to a D3 camp. :eek:

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!

Jurassic Referee Fri May 30, 2008 02:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
My only issue is who's to say whether or not the ball striking the dribblers foot was an interrupted dribble?

Did it not strike the dribblers foot?

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

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.

Raymond Fri May 30, 2008 02:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lcubed48
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!

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

Ch1town Fri May 30, 2008 02:53pm

Thanks for the breif history on the ruling of an interupted dribble JR! I guess one would have to know some of the old stuff to be current in todays ruling.
Sounds like an illegal dribble...
I'll run the OP by some of the powers that be to see how they would rule.


Thanks again

Jurassic Referee Fri May 30, 2008 02:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
I'll run the OP by some of the powers that be to see how they would rule.


Smart move. That's exactly what you should do on any ruling that you have the slightest doubt about. They're the ones who ultimately count, not the posters here(including me).

Ch1town Fri May 30, 2008 03:06pm

True dat!

Adam Fri May 30, 2008 03:23pm

Word.

rockyroad Fri May 30, 2008 03:55pm

Shutup.

Adam Fri May 30, 2008 04:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockyroad
Shutup.

Just a little bitter?

Camron Rust Fri May 30, 2008 04:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Smart move. That's exactly what you should do on any ruling that you have the slightest doubt about. They're the ones who ultimately count, not the posters here(including me).

Can't disagree with you there. However, have you ever seen/heard of such a person making a ruling that contradicts the books (i.e. a recent NFHS backcourt violation situation comes to mind;) )

Lcubed48 Sat May 31, 2008 04:19pm

The more the merrier!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Yes sir, about an hour's drive from my house.

Well then sir, I shall see you there. I'm 15 to 20 minutes from the campus. Look me up! Actually, there will be 3 or 4 of us who visit this site that will be attending the camp.

JRutledge Sat May 31, 2008 06:27pm

Yea...siiiiiirrrrrrr.

Peace


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1