Interrupted Dribble

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Essentially the same rule, although I'm not entirely certain about whether 4-12.4c and 4-16-4d are equivalent. NCAA rules seem to deem the dribble ended for the mere act of the opponent touching the ball (they define "Batting the Ball" as "Batting the ball is intentionally striking the ball or intentionally changing its direction with the hand or arm." [NCAA 4-6]). But NFHS doesn't deem the dribble ended unless the touching causes the dribbler to lose control.

I think the intent is such that the dribble ends when an interrupted dribble touches an opponent. It's not in the control of the dribbler.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think the intent is such that the dribble ends when an interrupted dribble touches an opponent. It's not in the control of the dribbler.

So then if A1 picked the ball up again and dribbled, he could do so without violating?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bas2456

So then if A1 picked the ball up again and dribbled, he could do so without violating?

The way I see it, yes.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think the intent is such that the dribble ends when an interrupted dribble touches an opponent. It's not in the control of the dribbler.

I'm having a difficult time reconciling your statement with "The ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to lose control.". The word "causes" has some pretty definite connotations. There is the obvious cause and effect relationship, in this case between "touches" and "lose control". It also implies an order of events, first "touching" then "lose control". During and interrupted dribble, control has already been lost.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I'm having a difficult time reconciling your statement with "The ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to lose control.". The word "causes" has some pretty definite connotations. There is the obvious cause and effect relationship, in this case between "touches" and "lose control". It also implies an order of events, first "touching" then "lose control". During and interrupted dribble, control has already been lost.

Situation:
A1 dribbing, loses it off his own foot. As he chases it, it bounces off B1's foot and changes direction forcing A1 to alter course to get it.

[Back In The Saddle]

Strictly by the text of the NFHS rule, and it's cause/effect language, I have to conclude that A1's dribble has not ended. So if the ball is still bouncing when A1 gets to it, he could continue the dribble. If he controlled the ball with both hands, or it came to rest in one hand, then the dribble has ended.

Stepping back just a bit, I'd have to say that during an interrupted dribble an opponent touching the ball does not end the dribble. Assuming that the dribbler is able to retrieve the ball, whether the dribble ends depends on what he does next.

Under NCAA, the opponent batting the ball ends the dribble. So even continuing the dribble would ... be an illegal dribble? That doesn't quite add up.

[just another ref]

This is a rule which was recently changed. Some of us flatter ourselves that the rule as it appears now may be a result of a discussion here.


4-15-4d change