legal or illegal dribble
 

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?

When was the first time that the player threw, pushed or batted the ball to the floor?

Placing the ball on the floor is not a dribble, IMHO.

Doesn't A1 releasing the ball voluntarily have to be a pass, try, or dribble?

I guess A1 could also hand-off the ball, and I know of no definition of that.

What else is there?

But you do know the definition of a dribble. Does placing the ball on the floor meet that definition?

Rule 4-15 Art 1,2 and 3. Placing the ball on the floor does not meet the definition of a dribble.

The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

Standing A1, holds the ball in front of him with his hands on the side of the ball, moves both hands away from the ball. The ball drops to the floor. The ball was neither pushed, thrown, or batted to the floor. A1, then moves both feet and bats the ball to the floor. Has A1 travelled?

In the original sitch would you call travel if A1 moved his feet before picking up the ball?

The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

The ball went to the floor. Yes.
Hands on the ball moving toward the release point, hands removed from the ball. Yes.

Granted, the forced applied on the ball was minimal.

How softly can you throw a ball?

Sam asks a good question; can a dribble start without pushing, forcing, or batting?

Sure. A1 is holding the ball. He then "lets" it drop to the floor and catches it with both hands. He proceeds to dribble the ball. Violation?

I think setting the ball on the floor, releasing it and starting a dribble should be considered to be a dribble violation, because it exceeds the stands still and holds requirement of 4.15 Comment.

The holding of the ball is a clearly written parameter, as is the standing still.
Should the ball be allowed to be picked up? I think, yes.
Should the ball be allowed to be dribbled? I think not.

References ? My gut.

Under the traveling definition, I guess it's not. However, could we really not call that a travel, or at least something under 2-3?

I agree. Placing the ball down on the floor, letting go, and then touching it again has to be considered a dribble.

It's one reason that I've never liked the ruling in the final sentence of 4.44.5 Sit B.

I've got a violation.

Why? When was the ball batted or pushed to the floor? 4-15-1

Scrapper1,
From U.P. here, it looks like putting the ball on the floor and releasing it may be the start of a dribble, and the subsequent *picking up* may be the end of the dribble.

No, it's not a travel violation. Let's assume my hypothetical player never moved his feet. Do you have a dribbling violation?

I think it's obviously a violation, but the ball was never pushed, batted, or forced to the floor (unless gravity counts, but that would include the OP's player setting the ball on the floor.)

This falls squarely under rule 11-1. Not a dribble. Don't go there.

Why? When was the ball batted or pushed to the floor? 4-15-1

Not Exactly The Same, But ...
 

NFHS 4.15.Comment: Is is not a dribble when the player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

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.

This is simply a difference of opinion, I guess. I would say that the player placed it on the floor. It doesn't seem to me that he pushed it anywhere.

push: transitive verb

• 1 a: to press against with force in order to drive or impel b: to move or endeavor to move away or ahead by steady pressure without striking
• 2 a: to thrust forward, downward, or outward

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.

Don't bother, mick. He's just being argumentative, obstinate, and pertinatious. :D

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? :eek: 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. :p

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

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.

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.

Beyond doodoo. Reading is so fundamental. :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

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. :(

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. :p 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Good call, Lord Byron.

:sigh:

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

...Stands still and holds....

Why holds ? :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Or, one other question - what is the call if a player, while laying on the floor and holding the ball, set/places/(does not drop or push or throw) the ball on the floor, stands up, then picks up the ball?

By my scenario, he can pick it up, but has ended his dribble. :)

I would not, since in my estimation he is neither holding nor dribbling the ball =
no player control.

Well, the reason I asked was that 4.44.5B says that is a traveling violation. So, since we can call a travel in this instance where the ball is <B>placed</B> on the ground, I would assume that means the rules committee is saying placing is not the same as dribbling, especially since we know if the player is dribbling, they can then stand up (ala Curly Neal). Also, this seems to indicate that even though they are not actually "holding" the ball, and they are not dribbling, they are still considered having player control?

My head hurts. :confused:

Your rule [4.44.5B] says "while holding the ball".
Yet you said in your sitch that he put the ball down and then stood.

Your head should hurt. ;)

Mick, not meaning to be argumentative (or JR-like), but double-check the case play I'm referring to. It says, once a player is on the floor, that, "Any attempt to get to the feet is traveling unles A1 is dribbling. It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is the first to touch the ball."

Aha! the case book, I thought you said rule.

"I see !", said the blind carpenter as he pciked up his hammer and saw.
Thanks.

So then putting the ball down, releasing it, and being first to touch is a violation if you are on the floor, but it is nothing if you are standing, other than loss of player control and all it's ramifications ?

No, the violation was because the player changed the status of their pivot foot by standing up - not because they placed the ball on the floor and then picked it back up.

Would you hold the nail for the blind carpenter?

That's where I'm confused, and the reason my head is starting to hurt. How can the rules committe consider it to be a travel, unless there is player-control? So, can a player who places the ball on the ground still be considered having player-control? Can they place the ball on the ground, start to stand up, then request a TO before picking up the ball? I wouldn't think so.

Hence my confusion.

Don't over think this one. It is an outlier, a one-off exception to the traveling rules. The action described is not traveling based on the rules in the rules book, in fact it contradicts those rules. It is traveling only because in this specific scenario the rules committee basically punted, called it traveling, and put it in the case book.

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.

Ok, my head hurts less now.

Carry on.

What, since nobody said you don't get a vote, you assume that you get a vote? That kind of thinking started this mess! :D

The Plot Thickens ...
 

What an unexpected twist this thread has taken. mick has come up with the oddest "one in a million games" play that I've seen in a long time. He has a great imagination, but we must be able to address this with rules, and/or interpretations. By pushing the limits of a reasonable basketball play, we are forced to better understand the rules, and interpretations.

Hey, Johnny-come-lately, I pointed that out 40 posts ago back in post #11.

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.

Well put, I think, and looking at it that way, this is a loophole that is still open.
As far as I'm concerned, if the player set the ball on the floor and the ball does not move, he can do anything he wants without a violation. Pick it up whether he moves his feet or not, start a dribble, whatever.

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"

Doesn't help: the case play envisions a player holding the ball while touching it to the floor. The current question concerns a player who is not holding the ball with his hands while it is on the floor.

Gmoore,
Yeah, that was a given. ;)
If you happen to read through the wordy thread, we were wondering what we should do if the player put the ball down on the floor, but then quit holding it, and then, the player picked the ball up again.

In all reality, I cannot envision a player setting the ball down slow enough that it doesn't roll even slightly. It moves a hair and you have the "infinitely smallest" definition of a push; therefore the start of a dribble.

On the other hand, he sets the ball down with both hands, wipes his hands on his socks and then bats the ball hard enough with one hand so that it starts bouncing....play on.

while we're splitting hairs.....
 

The definition of a dribble includes the phrase "pushes the ball to the floor." The infinitely small push you refer to here occurs after the ball is placed on the floor.

I am pushing the ball to the floor...I can push a lot of things without letting go....

I think I speak for us all when I say: HUH?

I "pushed" the ball to the floor and it eversoslightly moved after I let go...a dribble.

So you are saying the phrases "pushed the ball to the floor" and "placed the ball on the floor" are interchangeable? I disagree.

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

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

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

:p

Just Another Ref, FWIW I do see both sides......:)

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.

Makes sense to me ! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ak...smiley-030.gif

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.

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...)

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

Say it again, Brother BITS!

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

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? ;)

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.

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.

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. :D

I Bet He Stayed At A Holiday Inn Express Last Night ...
 

Great citation M&M Guy.

The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules
 

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.

Incidental Contact ???
 

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.

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

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

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??

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???:confused:

This is specifically forbidden by the case play. 4.44.5 B

This is not specifically forbidden by anything.

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?

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.

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................

:(

Yep.

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.