Okay, when does the rule say a dribble ends?

What if it was? The rule used to say "a bat by an opponent" ended the dribble, but had no provision for the dribble to end if the opponent "was touched" by the ball. Now the two are lumped together, ball touches or is touched by, but the phrase "causes the dribbler to lose control" is attached to both. This change took place after a long discussion here about this matter, which was sparked by a "good question" by, uh, okay, it was me.

Well, the only reason I asked was, in your question, realistically it doesn't make a difference because A1 didn't "lose control" and is still dribbling. But, technically speaking, didn't the dribble end and A1 started a new dribble? What if the touch caused just enough of change of direction that A1 had touch it with both hands to re-gain control of the dribble? With only a "slight touch" by B1, would you say A1 violated by touching the ball with both hands while dribbling? What do you consider "losing control"?

Losing control is a gray area. I thought that was the point of the use of the phrase "slight touch," in this case, and that the dribbler did not lose control.

I think that was the purpose of the change - we no longer have to judge the difference between a "slight touch" and "intentional bat".

While that is entirely beside the actual point, that implies that player control is lost if A1 has to make any sort of adjustment in response to B1's touch....it was briefly out of player control.

The real point was you can easily contruct cases that become backcourt violations that simply defy common sense....not to mention the rules.

When you've patted it with a bib.

Sorry - I just got back from visiting my grandson who turned three last week. We had lunch together today.

Okay, when does a dribble end?


So the little fellow cleaned you up. There's a good boy.:D

There are TWO different backcourt rules: 9-9-1 and 9-9-2.

Please don't confuse yourself by lumping them together. Doing that will yield incorrect results.

My play is governed by 9-9-1, since the ball was touched by a player from either team in the frontcourt of Team A, and is not a violation according to any sensible reading of the rule.

Your play falls under the purview of 9-9-2 and is a violation.

Right, which is why I was concerned about the reasoning that was being discussed. It seems to make the play legal, even when it's clearly stated by rule not to be legal.

I was very clearly discussing only 9-9-1 as evidenced by the fact that I quoted from that article. Any "reasoning" which was put forth was in the context of only that rule.

One cannot logically take anything that was written in that context and apply it to a completely different article in the rules book. That would also yield bizarre results.

The four-points system that has been enumerated on this forum is an excellent tool for helping an official determine if a backcourt violation has been committed, but it is not a complete substitute for the actual text of the rules.

Fair enough. It's not the first time I wrote a little too quickly