Yeah for sure, I was talking specifically about the obvious play where we know it is not a pass. I think Jay was referring to that as well.

How do you know it's not a pass? Because no one else is nearby? Maybe he was expecting a teammate to come in and the teammate cut a different direction? Maybe he knows he can't dribble so he's throwing a pass into a spot hoping a teammate spots it before a defender? My point is, I'm never calling this until the offensive player touches the ball first.

Additionally, you don't call it because it's not a violation if the ball is justing bouncing/laying on the floor.

Guys, you're picking nits.

A1 jumps for a shot but doesn't shoot.

Realizing his error, he (a) drops the ball to the floor and re-catches it, (b) pushes ball to floor to start a dribble.

I've got a violation in both cases. That's what I was referring to.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

You're clear, but I understand you to mean that if he pushes it to the floor and does not proceed to touch it, you're calling the violation. I'm not, because that play is just as easily a pass waiting for a recipient. If you're saying you'll wait in both cases until the player touches the ball again, I agree.

You need to re-read the OP.

There's a BIG difference between what you are describing and what the OP is describing. I would not describe the difference as a "nit".

The play you describe above is not being questioned by anybody.

I am, because I'm wondering at which point he calls the violation in B.
And, Canuck is on the record in post 10 as saying the two plays are the same.

+1

Whatever. Again, sorry I wasn't clearer the first time. I went back and clarified.

When a player releases the ball, it is a judgment call what it is. This is not a shot. A pass is defined as "to another player," so therefore, in my judgment, if he drops the ball straight to the floor, it is not a pass. This leaves only a dribble. Violation when it hits the floor.

That's true, but what I think the others were pointing out was the black/white nature of the language being used, and the idea that waiting to see the whole play is desirable.

I think we all know the play Jay had - and that he got it right.

Waiting to see the whole play may be desirable, but may open another can of worms.

A1 and B1 are the only two players in the picture. A1 goes up to shoot, but B1 is up there waiting for him. A1, realizing the shot will be blocked, drops the ball to the floor. When B1 comes down, he lunges for the loose ball, but knocks it out of bounds. You gonna give the ball back to A because this might have been a pass? I'm not.

I am. Because until A1 touches the ball again he has not violated. He has simply dropped the ball. So, if A1 drops the ball and A2 picks it up you are going call a violation? And that violation would be what, "dropping the ball while in mid-air"? Sorry, that, in and of itself, is not a violation.

I abosutely am going to go with the OOB call on this. Like I said earlier, a players pass to an open spot all the time, assuming or hoping a teammate will get to it. I'm going to assume A1 knows the rule and isn't going to touch it until he proves me wrong by touching it.

This goes back to, "if you don't know for sure that it's a violation, it's not." If there's any doubt, let it go; see the whole play.

Actually, based on this post from Jay, I'm not sure.
If he called the violation before A1 retouched the ball, I don't think he got it right. Will it matter in the game? Probably not 99% of the time, but in plays like jar brings up just above this post, it would matter and I think jar would get it wrong.