Quiz time for newbies

[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 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?

[jearef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

-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.

+1

If the distinction to be made is whether the ball was batted "up", as suggested previously, then how do we define "up"? What angle would constitute "up" as opposed to "forward", or some other direction? Not trying to be a smartazz, just suggesting that to interpret the rule as others have suggested would create more confusion. JR has it right, IMO; it is, and always has been, a violation to touch the basketball twice during a dribble before it touches the floor.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Raymond]

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.

That thought process is wrong. He erroneously makes "up" an element of the rule.

[Mark Padgett]

Gee - nobody asked me what I called. I guess nobody cares.

[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?

[Gargil]

Did you call a travel??

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Gargil

Did you call a travel??

No, I called icing, er, I mean, illegal dribble.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

-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.

1. I get the principle stated in the case play, and I certainly agree that cases have the status of rules.
2. I'm in no position to challenge your assertion that this is a violation and always has been. I accept that at face value.
3. BUT: why isn't there a rule? The principle is simple, and could easily be in the illegal dribble rule or the definition of a dribble. If it's so basic, why ain't it in the book? Perhaps I'm just frustrated that I never learned this.