Quiz time for newbies

[Gargil]

Case Book 4.15.4 situation D, Ruling (a), Violation because the ball was touched twice by A1's hand during a dribble, before it touched the floor.

[vbzebra]

correct violation per previous casebook ruling. However, I don't think I could pull that dribble move off if I tried (yes, I know by RULE i could NOT pull it off, ha ha, but you know what I'm saying)

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by vbzebra

correct violation per previous casebook ruling. However, I don't think I could pull that dribble move off if I tried (yes, I know by RULE i could NOT pull it off, ha ha, but you know what I'm saying)

This actually used to be a ball handling drill to work on hand speed and coordination. The drill was to dribble the ball as you normally would, then see how many times you could tap it at the height of its dribble w/out "travelling" (hey this WAS the 80's) The goal was to get the dribble lower while increasing or keeping the number of "taps" the same.
There was also a pass in the Pistol Pete video (80's!) series where he would leave the dribble up a little higher then take his hand either over the top, then back underneath, (or vice versa) then slap/pass it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Gargil

Case Book 4.15.4 situation D, Ruling (a), Violation because the ball was touched twice by A1's hand during a dribble, before it touched the floor.

Although this case is linked by number to rule 4-15-4, nothing in 4-15-4 supports the ruling.

The case actually involves an application of 4-15-2: "During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)."

The case play ruling misleadingly suggests that it is a violation to touch the ball twice before it touches the floor. No rule in the vicinity requires that, other than 4-15-2, and then only when the ball is batted UP.

Since the OP did NOT involve a player batting the ball into the air, I submit that this case play does not show that the player violated by batting the ball twice toward the floor.

Here endeth the lesson.

[SAJ]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Although this case is linked by number to rule 4-15-4, nothing in 4-15-4 supports the ruling.

The case actually involves an application of 4-15-2: "During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)."

The case play ruling misleadingly suggests that it is a violation to touch the ball twice before it touches the floor. No rule in the vicinity requires that, other than 4-15-2, and then only when the ball is batted UP.

Since the OP did NOT involve a player batting the ball into the air, I submit that this case play does not show that the player violated by batting the ball twice toward the floor.

Here endeth the lesson.

into the air != up

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

although this case is linked by number to rule 4-15-4, nothing in 4-15-4 supports the ruling.

The case actually involves an application of 4-15-2: "during a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)."

the case play ruling misleadingly suggests that it is a violation to touch the ball twice before it touches the floor. No rule in the vicinity requires that, other than 4-15-2, and then only when the ball is batted up.

Since the op did not involve a player batting the ball into the air, i submit that this case play does not show that the player violated by batting the ball twice toward the floor.

Here endeth the lesson.

+1

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Although this case is linked by number to rule 4-15-4, nothing in 4-15-4 supports the ruling.

The case actually involves an application of 4-15-2: "During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)."

The case play ruling misleadingly suggests that it is a violation to touch the ball twice before it touches the floor. No rule in the vicinity requires that, other than 4-15-2, and then only when the ball is batted UP.

Since the OP did NOT involve a player batting the ball into the air, I submit that this case play does not show that the player violated by batting the ball twice toward the floor.

Here endeth the lesson.

-1

The RULING of that case play very succintly and definitively says "Violation in (a) because the ball was touched twice by A1's hand(s) during a dribble, before it touched the floor."

Note that statement is not limited only to dribbled balls batted upwards. It covers all single dribbles, no matter what direction they were legally started. That's the intent an purpose of the rule, and the rulesmakers laid it out in very plain language in that case play.

That's exactly why we have case plays. Case plays are rules, no matter what reference might be provided at the end if them. The context is what matters. That play has been called a violation under all rule codes as long as I've been around afaik. It is universally accepted as being the correct and proper call. Nit-picking the hell out of it because of arguably vague language doesn't do any of us any favors imo. It might give the impression to a newer official reading this that it might not a violation to hit the ball in the air twice during a dribble. It is a violation and always has been a violation.

Paralysis through analysis.

Your lesson ain't a very good one imo.

[Adam]

Hmmm. Rethinking now.

[Amesman]

Not to sound too knave on this one, but a) how often has anyone seen this two-touch dribble (maybe I'm not envisioning all of its possibilities)? and b) how often have you seen it called? Not arguing any merit of the rule here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Not to sound too naive on this one, but a) how often has anyone seen this two-touch dribble (maybe I'm not envisioning all of its possibilities)? and b) how often have you seen it called? Not arguing any merit of the rule here.

I've seen it and I've called it...and I've seen it called.....usually when a lesser-skilled player is attempting a cross-over dribble.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I've seen it and I've called it...and I've seen it called.....usually when a lesser-skilled player is attempting a cross-over dribble.

Could this be put into the dribble fumble dribble ruling?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Not to sound too knave on this one,

Don't worry. You aren't too knave. This, on the other hand, may be.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Hmmm. Rethinking now.

Snaqs, if that exact situation came up in a state championship game that you were doing, would you ignore the double-touch because of the logic that Mike used? Or would you go with the way that it has been traditionally called?

Or...do you disagree that this play has been traditionally called a violation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Snaqs, if that exact situation came up in a state championship game that you were doing, would you ignore the double-touch because of the logic that Mike used? Or would you go with the way that it has been traditionally called?

Or...do you disagree that this play has been traditionally called a violation?

I've never seen it, called or no-called, so I have no opinion on how it's "traditionally" been called. I'll defer to you on that.

My initial thought was to call it a violation, but as I read the rule I questioned that based on the same thought process mbyron posted.

[jalons]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've never seen it, called or no-called, so I have no opinion on how it's "traditionally" been called. I'll defer to you on that.

My initial thought was to call it a violation, but as I read the rule I questioned that based on the same thought process mbyron posted.

I have never called it or seen it called either. However, I would rule this a violation based on 4.15.4 Situation D, as JR has pointed out.