legal or illegal dribble

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CoachP

A dribble is BALL MOVEMENT caused by a player...

...pushed, placed, batted, tapped, purposely dropped, rolled.....all kinds of verbs

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.

[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...)

[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.

[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??

[rockyroad]

Don't have my books here, and too lazy to walk out to the car on a Saturday morning - but doesn't the case play involving the player placing ball on floor, standing up, then picking up the ball say that the player has committed a traveling violation? If so, what does that have to do with this argument about illegal dribble???

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CoachP

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.

This is specifically forbidden by the case play. 4.44.5 B

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??

This is not specifically forbidden by anything.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CoachP

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??

The real irony here is that the inconsistency you highlight is an example of the problem with your argument. The ruling on the sliding player scenario is an exception, and is completely inconsistent with the traveling ruling. Now you want to "solve the problem" by introducing another exception, this one completely inconsistent with the dribbling rule.

There is reasonable justification for the exceptional ruling on traveling, what is is the justification for an exception to the dribbling rule?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The real irony here is that the inconsistency you highlight is an example of the problem with your argument. The ruling on the sliding player scenario is an exception, and is completely inconsistent with the traveling ruling. Now you want to "solve the problem" by introducing another exception, this one completely inconsistent with the dribbling rule.

There is reasonable justification for the exceptional ruling on traveling, what is is the justification for an exception to the dribbling rule?

If it is an exception, then why was it used a few pages back to add proof that it is a dribble? Shouldn't an exception ONLY be used for it's specific case?
Can't have it both ways.....

As I said earlier, our local assignor calls it a dribble, (setting the ball down, wiping his socks, picking up again) but yet another referee I saw by chance Sunday (from another association) says it is a loose ball and he may pick up and dribble................

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CoachP

If it is an exception, then why was it used a few pages back to add proof that it is a dribble? Shouldn't an exception ONLY be used for it's specific case?
Can't have it both ways.....

Yep.

Originally Posted by CoachP

As I said earlier, our local assignor calls it a dribble, (setting the ball down, wiping his socks, picking up again) but yet another referee I saw by chance Sunday (from another association) says it is a loose ball and he may pick up and dribble................

Thus we have 7 pages and 95+ responses on this one. The fact is, the rule book doesn't define this action to be anything at all.

[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.

[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.