Quiz time for newbies

[Mark Padgett]

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?

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dsqrddgd909

No rule book...no violation.

Is that like working without a net?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Is that like working without a net?

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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

ROFLMAO!!

MTD, Sr.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

ROFLMAO!!

MTD, Sr.

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

[Gargil]

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

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Gargil

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?

[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)

[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.