By unilateral decree...

[Adam]

Okay, when does the rule say a dribble ends?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What if that slight touch was intentional?

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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"?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, when does the rule say a dribble ends?

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.

[just another ref]

Okay, when does a dribble end?

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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