legal or illegal dribble

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mick

Then it is a dribble when no longer holding...?

Scrapper1,
The player pushed it [away from himself] to the floor. He did not bat it, pull it, or hold it. He pushed it.
If releasing the ball don't make no nevermind, why in the world would it be included in the wording ?
Sell me.

Push: to press upon or against (a thing) with force in order to move it away. "To the floor" indicates motion in a direction, and describes a dynamic relationship between the ball and floor.

Newton would insist that one property of an object that is being/has been pushed is that it continues in motion, in the same direction, once the motivating force is removed.

OTOH, the OP said "A1 places the ball on the floor". Place indicates an object has been moved, in a completely controlled manner, to a new location without imparting independent force to it. An object that has been placed will not continue in motion. "On the floor" indicates a location without implying motion, it describes static relationship.

Which one of those actions actually describes a dribble? Imparting a force to the ball, putting it in motion toward the floor, removing the force at some point while the ball continues in motion, where it will participate in a dynamic relationship with the floor...or...Moving the ball, in a controlled manner, to a new location on the floor, where it remains motionless?

Pushing the ball to the floor, is a very different act than placing the ball on the floor. To argue that placing is a form of pushing is wrong.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Push: to press upon or against (a thing) with force in order to move it away. "To the floor" indicates motion in a direction, and describes a dynamic relationship between the ball and floor.

Newton would insist that one property of an object that is being/has been pushed is that it continues in motion, in the same direction, once the motivating force is removed.

OTOH, the OP said "A1 places the ball on the floor". Place indicates an object has been moved to a new location without imparting independent force to it. An object that has been placed will not continue in motion. "On the floor" indicates a location without implying motion, it describes static relationship.

Pushing the ball to the floor, is a very different act than placing the ball on the floor. To argue that placing is a form of pushing is wrong.

Complete doodoo.

So you are going to contend that no force was applied and that there was no motion involved in getting the ball to that location? How ridiculous.

Also, there are two forces at work in your "static relationship." Gravity is exerting a downward force on the ball which is being met by an equal and opposite upward force from the floor. So take that, Mr. Science Guy.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So you are going to contend that no force was applied and that there was no motion involved in getting the ball to that location? How ridiculous.

Look, if simply applying a downward force met the definition of "pushing the ball to the floor", then holding the ball and touching to the floor would be a dribble, wouldn't it? You're pushing the ball to the floor, and the ball strikes the floor. That's got to be a dribble. But the rules specifically tell us it's not. So your version of "pushing" doesn't meet the requirement of a dribble.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Look, if simply applying a downward force met the definition of "pushing the ball to the floor", then holding the ball and touching to the floor would be a dribble, wouldn't it? You're pushing the ball to the floor, and the ball strikes the floor. That's got to be a dribble. But the rules specifically tell us it's not. So your version of "pushing" doesn't meet the requirement of a dribble.

...Rhetoric, Scrapper1.

Please explain the requirement of holding the ball versus not holding the ball in the sitch.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Look, if simply applying a downward force met the definition of "pushing the ball to the floor", then holding the ball and touching to the floor would be a dribble, wouldn't it? You're pushing the ball to the floor, and the ball strikes the floor. That's got to be a dribble. But the rules specifically tell us it's not. So your version of "pushing" doesn't meet the requirement of a dribble.

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.

That is not directly stated in 4-15, but the final sentence of 4.15 Comment let's us know that information.

Furthermore, your whole argument centering on a lack of pushing the ball TO THE FLOOR is silly because one could argue the same thing about pushing or throwing the ball straight up into the air and then allowing it to bounce on the floor. 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.

[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

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Complete doodoo.

So you are going to contend that no force was applied and that there was no motion involved in getting the ball to that location? How ridiculous.

Also, there are two forces at work in your "static relationship." Gravity is exerting a downward force on the ball which is being met by an equal and opposite upward force from the floor. So take that, Mr. Science Guy.

Beyond doodoo. Reading is so fundamental.

No. I am contending that in the act of "placing" the ball "on the floor" there is no force imparted to the ball by the player. Any motion is a consequence of the ball being at rest in the player's hands while they are in motion. At any point along the path to the floor, if the player's hands stop moving, so does the ball.

This is completely different than "pushing" the ball "to the floor" which does impart a force to the ball, setting the ball in motion independently of the player's hands. Thus the ball continues in motion when when the hand stops pushing.

The argument was being made that "placing" or "putting" the ball "on the floor" was the same as "pushing" the ball "to the floor". But it ain't so. Simply placing the ball on the floor does not meet the definition of a dribble.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Beyond doodoo. Reading is so fundamental.

No. I am contending that in the act of "placing" the ball "on the floor" there is no force imparted to the ball by the player. Any motion is a consequence of the ball being at rest in the player's hands while they are in motion. At any point along the path to the floor, if the player's hands stop moving, so does the ball.

This is completely different than "pushing" the ball "to the floor" which does impart a force to the ball, setting the ball in motion independently of the player's hands. Thus the ball continues in motion when when the hand stops pushing.

The argument was being made that "placing" or "putting" the ball "on the floor" was the same as "pushing" the ball "to the floor". But it ain't so. Simply placing the ball on the floor does not meet the definition of a dribble.

Lah me. This kind of thinking is the reason that we needed a rule change to tell us that a THROWN ball from behind the 3 point line was worth three points when it entered the basket.

BTW it has already been mentioned, but dropping the ball from waist height and allowing it to fall to the floor due to gravity, doesn't impart a force from the player's hands to the ball either. I guess you don't think that is a 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.

[christianH]

Well my interpretations are from the FIBA rules

Rolling the ball is a dribble by the FIBA Rules art 13. How the ball is played and art 24 Dribbling .

So if you consider that as the player placed the ball on the floor the ball rolled, even if half milimeter, when he holds the ball back, this causes the end of the dribble and he must pass/shoot the ball.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

To argue that placing is a form of pushing is wrong.

I think the only arguing about 'put' and 'place' are your voices.