Quiz time for newbies
 

This happened in one of my rec games this past weekend. NF rules. A1 is dribbling. During his dribble, he pushes the ball down but then taps it again on its way down toward the floor. His hand was never on the side of the ball, nor did it ever come to rest in his hand. He just tapped it twice instead of once. Illegal dribble violation or not?

No rule book...no violation.

Is that like working without a net? ;)

I worked lots of games without a net. Peach baskets didn't have nets. :rolleyes:

ROFLMAO!! :D

MTD, Sr.

Because you remember working in those days, too? I really liked it when the basketballs had laces. ;)

I'm old enough to remember when the shoes had laces.
:D

I would have a violation. The ball would have to strike the floor before he could touch it a second time.

Do you have a rule reference?

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.

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) :D

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

+1

-1

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

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.

Hmmm. Rethinking now.

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.

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?

+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.

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.

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

http://www.clivebarker.info/knave198.jpg

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.

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.

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

Gee - nobody asked me what I called. I guess nobody cares. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/cry2.gif

Could this be put into the dribble fumble dribble ruling?

Did you call a travel??:rolleyes:

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

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.

The rule says: "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)."

Yes, I interpret "into the air" to mean 'up'. What do you think it means?

There's air all around the ball, so any batting of the ball sends it into air. If "into the air" doesn't mean 'up' or some specific direction, what does the phrase add to the rule? And if it adds nothing to the rule, then there's no reason for it to be there. That doesn't make sense of the rule, but just ignores part of it.

Valid point.

We really shouldn't have to dig into case plays to find a basic(to me anyway) concept like that. And btw, you got me thinking...and checking. I contacted some people that I know are involved fairly heavily with training in their respective areas. All said that they taught as a basic that it was illegal to make consecutive touches on the ball during the same dribble, no matter which hand made either touch(with a single dribble being defined as the interval between bounces). They cited that case play as justification. Of course, they also said that simultaneous touching with both hands during a dribble was not a violation, but only ended the dribble. The consensus was that the purpose and intent of the rule has always been that a dribble is only legal if it is touched once by either hand between controlled bounces with the ball never coming to rest. Note "controlled"...because a fumble during the dribble might result in several legal touches without the ball bouncing.

Why don't you bring this one up with your local rules interpreter and get his thoughts on it?