By unilateral decree...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron:

Read my initial post in this thread (#29). This is an interpretation that has been around for over 45 years. I really don't see how way too many nonsense plays can be created as the result of this interpretation. It is a logical interpretation and quite a simple and elegant interpretation.

I've seen no evidence that this position existed before last year.

There are many crazy situations IF this interpratation were true....

#1. A1 dribbling the ball in the backcourt with one foot on each side of the line. B1 slightly touches the ball (or is touched by the ball) just before it returns to A1's hand during the dribble. Since B1's touching ends the dribble (and removing the benefit of the 3-points rule), the ball gains FC status on B1's touch. The moment it returns to A1's hand, you have a backcourt violation. B1 only needs to get a finger tip on the ball as it returns to A1's hand to cause A1 to violate.

#2. A1 near the division line in the BC attempts a pass to A2, also near the division line in the BC. B1 jumps from the FC in an attempt to intercept the pass. B1 slightly deflects the pass but the pass continues on, in flight, to A2. By your interpratation, this would be a BC violation against A.

These two results are just nonsense.

This interpretation is in direct contradiction with the rules. THere is NO way to read the rules and come to this conclusion. It may be that some people believe that this was the case...and perhaps for a long time....but there is no rules basis for that conclusion.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#1. A1 dribbling the ball in the backcourt with one foot on each side of the line. B1 slightly touches the ball (or is touched by the ball) just before it returns to A1's hand during the dribble. Since B1's touching ends the dribble (and removing the benefit of the 3-points rule), the ball gains FC status on B1's touch. The moment it returns to A1's hand, you have a backcourt violation. B1 only needs to get a finger tip on the ball as it returns to A1's hand to cause A1 to violate.

A slight touch, if A1 does not lose control, does not end the dribble.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A slight touch, if A1 does not lose control, does not end the dribble.

What if that slight touch was intentional?

[Adam]

Okay, when does the rule say a dribble ends?

[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.

[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.