More garbage from the NFHS

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I say the logic of this entire conversation is faulty because the 2007-08 Interp considered the play an illegal dribble despite the fact that the ball never touched the playing court. How come you and Nevada didn't have a problem with that interpretation? It violated the principle of a dribble being a pushed/tapped/batted ball that hits the playing court.

Because that is precisely what make this action an ILLEGAL dribble.
A LEGAL dribble is one that contacts the floor. That is part of the definiton of how to dribble. Since this ball didn't contact the floor, the player dribbled in an illegal manner. It's really that simple. Read rule 4-15-2 and you will see that this action violates one of the provisions of a DRIBBLE. On the contrary, there is no provision of the traveling rule which one can point to and correctly claim to have been violated by this action.

Also consult 4.15.4 Situation D part (a) and notice that the new Case Book ruling contradicts with this long standing Case Book play and is basically the same action.

BTW your 'lift the pivot foot and then start a dribble' situation does fall within the purview of "while holding the ball" and thus the guiding principle for traveling. The player lifted his pivot while holding the ball and certainly released the ball to begin a dribble while holding it. The violation takes place at that time. The official simply has to wait to confirm that the action of the player was indeed a dribble and not a pass. So the call by the official has to be delayed. That is very similar to an official waiting to see if contact put a player at a disadvantage before calling a foul. The foul still took place at the time of the contact, not when the official blew his whistle. In fact, if such a play happens late in an NCAA game with access to a courtside monitor the official will reset the clock to the time of the contact, not the time of the call.