legal or illegal dribble

[Nevadaref]

Also, if you wish to talking about imparting a force to the ball, then you must recognize that in gently placing the ball on the floor so that it does not bounce, the player is, in fact, imparting an upward force to the ball which counteracts the force of gravity. Otherwise, the force of gravity would cause the ball to fall quickly and rebound from the floor when contact was made. The player is obviously opposing that force while lowering the ball. So he is actually pushing the ball upward as he takes it to the floor! That sentence makes this action meets the definition of a dribble even by your reasoning. He simply ceases imparting such a force when the destination is reached and the upward force of the floor is able to take over in counteracting the force of gravity.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

By making that argument you are failing to acknowledge that one of the implied tenents of the definition of a dribble is that the ball must be released--contact with the hand must cease.

If you want to officiate by implied tenets, feel free. I referee by the rules. And all I'm doing is telling you what the rules say. The rules say that a dribble is started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor. On your definition of "pushing" -- imparting a force in a particular direction -- then when the ball is touched to the floor, a player in control has pushed the ball to the floor and the dribble has started. End of story. That is clearly not true, however, since the casebook tells us explicitly that holding the ball and touching it to the floor is not a dribble. Therefore, your definition of "pushing" cannot be correct in this context.

One could contend that the player pushed it towards the ceiling and not the floor, so it doesn't meet the definition of a dribble. Silliness.

And in that case, I would contend that the player has thrown the ball to the floor. You don't have to throw the ball directly at the floor in order for it to be thrown "to the floor".

This has now, IMHO, become a silly debate. This is not a violation of any kind. Those of you who would like to make something out of it, feel free.

[jdmara]

I think this discussion is very interesting.

One question though...A1 just received a pass from A2 and starts a dribble. He then ends his dribble. While holding the ball out in front of him with both hands, he intentionally drops the ball and catches it after it bounces. (A) He moves his pivot foot. (B) He does not move his pivot foot. Is this a violation?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just curious after this discussion. Before reading this, I would have called a violation since he intentionally released the ball a second time. *shrug*

-Josh

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by iref4him

A rookie official asked me this last night. A1 is holding the ball and has not used his dribble. A1 places the ball on the floor, wipes his hands off on his socks, and then picks up the ball and starts his dribble. The rookie said he would call an illegal dribble. What do you think?

Disagree. Setting the ball on the floor is not a dribble.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Disagree. Setting the ball on the floor is not a dribble.

What about setting it on the floor so that it rolls?

[mick]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What about setting it on the floor so that it rolls?

Good call, Lord Byron.

[Back In The Saddle]

:sigh:

I thought the "that's gotta be somethun'" mentality was officially restricted to inside the coaching box.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

:sigh:

I thought the "that's gotta be somethun'" mentality was officially restricted to inside the coaching box.

...Stands still and holds....

Why holds ?

[Back In The Saddle]

Yes, we have a definitive statement clarifying the standing still and holding scenario. We have no such statement clarifying placing the ball on the floor. So we are left with...

"A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times."

Placing the ball on the floor doesn't fit that definition. The end result of placing the ball on the floor doesn't even resemble a dribble. So why bring out the shoe horn?

:shrug:

[mick]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Yes, we have a definitive statement clarifying the standing still and holding scenario. We have no such statement clarifying placing the ball on the floor. So we are left with...

"A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times."

Placing the ball on the floor doesn't fit that definition. The end result of placing the ball on the floor doesn't even resemble a dribble. So why bring out the shoe horn?

:shrug:

Because....

Player A, standing still and holding the ball, is closely guarded. To avoid a closely guarded count, Player A puts the ball on the floor and thereby removes player control because he is neither dribbling, nor holding.

If we allow Player A to do that once,... or several times, then Player A may run the clock for quite a while.

By simply deemimg that the released ball is a dribble, we have eliminated the need to change, or clarify, other rules like player control, closely guarded, 5-seconds and dribble.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What about setting it on the floor so that it rolls?

Or without releasing the hands from the ball, lowering the hands with enough speed that the ball bounces out of the hands. a fumble or a dribble?

ie. the groung caused the bounce, a1 did not release the ball, ball was not thrown or batted.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mick

Because....

Player A, standing still and holding the ball, is closely guarded. To avoid a closely guarded count, Player A puts the ball on the floor and thereby removes player control because he is neither dribbling, nor holding.

If we allow Player A to do that once,... or several times, then Player A may run the clock for quite a while.

By simply deemimg that the released ball is a dribble, we have eliminated the need to change, or clarify, other rules like player control, closely guarded, 5-seconds and dribble.

Definitely an interesting scenario. And your proposed rules change would be a simple, and probably very effective, way to address the situation. If it ever becomes an issue.

[just another ref]

I guess everybody has a vote here, and my vote is no way is this a dribble.
I think it's clear that there is no definitive answer in the books to this question.
I agree with the philosophy which has been stated here many times in varying degrees: When in doubt, lean toward the no call.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mick

Because....

Player A, standing still and holding the ball, is closely guarded. To avoid a closely guarded count, Player A puts the ball on the floor and thereby removes player control because he is neither dribbling, nor holding.

The closely guarded count then becomes irrelevant because B1 picks up the ball.

[mick]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I guess everybody has a vote here, and my vote is no way is this a dribble.
I think it's clear that there is no definitive answer in the books to this question.
I agree with the philosophy which has been stated here many times in varying degrees: When in doubt, lean toward the no call.

So..., while the player is wiping his hands on his socks and his coach requests a time-out, do you grant it ?