legal or illegal dribble

[mick]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Just hung up with the assignor from our area.
They're calling it a dribble.

Makes sense to me !

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

If that is the only part of the definition you consider, then a pass is also a dribble, a try is also a dribble, tapping a jump ball is also a dribble, grabbing a rebound is also a dribble...there's going to be a heckuva lot of illegal dribble violations in that game.

Fortunately, the actual definition limits the universe of possible ball movements to two specific ones: batting or pushing the ball to the floor.

No, I just stopped there to emphasize "ball movement"....a lot of things have to happen before you can 100% prove a definition. For example, A1 passes to A2. Is it a pass or a dribble?? We don't know till the "play" is finished. If A2 catches it, it was a pass. If A2 ran away and A1 caught back up and started bouncing it, it was a dribble.

Same with my theory. A1 pushes ball to floor, lets go, ball moves, A1 picks up...end of dribble.

Or using previous post of the case book:

casebook 4.15 " It is not a dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once"

I could use the theory that holding it does not constitute a dribble so therefore letting go does.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by CoachP

I could use the theory that holding it does not constitute a dribble so therefore letting go does.

And then I could come back and say case play 4.44.5 SitB says there is a difference between the two. A player on the floor is allowed to stand up, as long as they are dribbling, but they are not allowed to place the ball on the floor, then stand, then be the first to touch it again. So, doesn't that say "placing the ball on the floor" is not the same as "dribbling"? Two distinct acts (dribbling vs. placing) while doing the same thing (standing up), where one is legal and one is a violation.

(Oh, crap, here comes my headache again...)

[Back In The Saddle]

Since when do "NFHS rules" and "making sense" belong in the same sentence?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Since when do "NFHS rules" and "making sense" belong in the same sentence?

Say it again, Brother BITS!

Can I get an "Amen!" from the congregation?!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CoachP

No, I just stopped there to emphasize "ball movement"....a lot of things have to happen before you can 100% prove a definition. For example, A1 passes to A2. Is it a pass or a dribble?? We don't know till the "play" is finished. If A2 catches it, it was a pass. If A2 ran away and A1 caught back up and started bouncing it, it was a dribble.

Same with my theory. A1 pushes ball to floor, lets go, ball moves, A1 picks up...end of dribble.

Or using previous post of the case book:

casebook 4.15 " It is not a dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once"

I could use the theory that holding it does not constitute a dribble so therefore letting go does.

No, a very small number of things have to happen. One of two possible things, in fact. Either the player bats the ball to the floor, or he pushes it to the floor.

"Ball movement" is the broad category, and is only the starting point for the definition, which further narrows which types of ball movement are considered dribbling. All dribbling is ball movement, not all ball movement is dribbling.

BTW, placing the ball on the floor still doesn't appear in my book under the definition of dribble. Am I missing a page?

[just another ref]

Another factor one may or may not wish to consider: By rule, advantage/disadvantage is not involved in what is or is not a violation. But, in reality, it is a consideration in some cases. I see no possible advantage to be gained by a player placing the ball on the floor and retrieving it. This would make me even less likely to call this a violation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Since when do "NFHS rules" and "making sense" belong in the same sentence?

And, we could remember that there are a finite number of words in the book to cover an infinite number of possibilities. Since the play being discussed is extremely unlikely, it would not likely be one of the defined possibilities.

If we were defining the rules of this new-fangled game called basketball, would we want the play to be legal or illegal? How do we think the FED would rule (what is the "intent and purpose" of this rule)?

Sometimes this rule-book lawyering is mental stimuilation. Sometimes, it's mental .... well, lets just say that it might cause us to go blind.

[Back In The Saddle]

I have started to say something on this subject more than once during this thread, and never actually done it. So I'm glad you brought it up.

All kidding aside, I think the NFHS basketball rules are fairly well done, especially compared to some other rules books I've experienced. And the way they've been done is well suited to the game. I'm also of the philosophical bent that, generally, if a play/action/whatever isn't specifically ruled illegal, it is legal. That is the root of my argumentativeness on this. It clearly does not meet the definition of a dribble.

But...applying the WWJND test: The dribble is legal method of advancing the ball while still maintaining player control. The associated rules all have to do with maintaining a balance of offense and defense based around this activity. But what the OP describes, is just some guy who stops advancing the ball, sets it on the floor and wipes his hands on his socks, and then continues play. Any 10 second count doesn't stop. The ball is available to the defense. And I'm not sure how to balance offense and defense during gratuitous hand wiping. I don't see how the game benefits by defining this unusual action as anything, let alone as equivalent to advancing the ball down court by bouncing it.

Now if players begin doing what Mick describes, it would have to be addressed. One way would be to define the placing the ball on the floor and picking it up to be a dribble. Another would be to state that a five second count does not stop if the player places the ball on the floor. I'd favor the second approach because it has less potential for unintended consequences from messing with a long-standing fundamental definition.

If the NFHS ever addresses the issue, I probably won't have much to say about it no matter what they decide. Unless they really screw it up like the recent backcourt interp.

I'll stop now, while I only need glasses.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

4.44.5 SitB: A player on the floor is allowed to stand up, as long as they are dribbling, but they are not allowed to place the ball on the floor, then stand, then be the first to touch it again. So, doesn't that say "placing the ball on the floor" is not the same as "dribbling"? Two distinct acts (dribbling vs. placing) while doing the same thing (standing up), where one is legal and one is a violation.

Great citation M&M Guy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

By rule, advantage/disadvantage is not involved in what is or is not a violation.

Which rule? If it's Rule 11, then I'm missing a few pages out of my NFHS Rulebook. But I did find this on page 10 of my NFHS Rulebook: The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules: It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

All three of the statements refer to "rules". The word "foul" isn't mentioned, not even once. Rules include both fouls, and violations.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Which rule? If it's Rule 11, then I'm missing a few pages out of my NFHS Rulebook. But I did find this on page 10 of my NFHS Rulebook: The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules: It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

All three of the statements refer to "rules". The word "foul" isn't mentioned, not even once. Rules include both fouls, and violations.

Billy, he means that for fouls, advantage/disadvantage is explicitly written into the definition. It is not part of the definition of violations.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Billy, he means that for fouls, advantage/disadvantage is explicitly written into the definition. It is not part of the definition of violations.

Are you referring to incidental contact? If so, you make a good point. However, I have never found anything in writing that excludes violations from advantage/disadvantage, intent and purpose, or the Tower Philosophy. If you can find something, in writng, that excludes violations, such as three seconds, or a ten second count on a freethrow shooter, from these principles, then please post it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And then I could come back and say case play 4.44.5 SitB says there is a difference between the two. A player on the floor is allowed to stand up, as long as they are dribbling, but they are not allowed to place the ball on the floor, then stand, then be the first to touch it again. So, doesn't that say "placing the ball on the floor" is not the same as "dribbling"? Two distinct acts (dribbling vs. placing) while doing the same thing (standing up), where one is legal and one is a violation.

(Oh, crap, here comes my headache again...)

Yes, and it is a stupid ruling. The fact is that there is NO player control in this case.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hey! You try and read 40 of these posts while your head hurts! It ain't easy!

(Besides, remember the old saying, "What have you done for me lately?" )

I think BITS and Scrappy covered it well by saying the committee was just trying to close a potential loophole in the traveling provisions, rather than expanding on player-control and dribbling definitions. I can't imagine they are really saying that setting the ball on the floor is the same as dribbling.

I agree with Scrapper here. The reason for the Case Book ruling is that the player is attempting to circumvent the rule.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It's traveling because the player's action is a deliberate attempt to evade the traveling rule. So they include it as a separate "article" to the traveling rule.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And then I could come back and say case play 4.44.5 SitB says there is a difference between the two. A player on the floor is allowed to stand up, as long as they are dribbling, but they are not allowed to place the ball on the floor, then stand, then be the first to touch it again. So, doesn't that say "placing the ball on the floor" is not the same as "dribbling"? Two distinct acts (dribbling vs. placing) while doing the same thing (standing up), where one is legal and one is a violation.

(Oh, crap, here comes my headache again...)

And therein lies my headache.

A1 goes sliding across the floor to gather a loose ball. When he stops he can place it on the floor, stand, but not touch it again.

But if A1 runs across the floor, secures a loose ball, sets the ball on the floor; some here are saying, not only is he allowed to touch it, he can pick it up and dribble it??