I think in a case like this, we must, as best we can, deal with what we see right in front of us, not let the player be bailed out by a hypothetical might have been.

Another example comes to mind. Airborne player is fouled, then ball is released and swatted out of bounds by the defense. He should never get two shots.
This might have been a pass.

Except in that case, an airborne shooter has been fouled. That means, in your judgment, the offensive player was fouled while in the act of shooting. In other words, the foul actually occurs. The judgment is whether or not he was in the act of shooting

In the situations regarding the pass/travel, no violation has occurred because of the player dropping the ball. There is no rules justification to support calling a travel in this situation. Unlike the airborne shooter, there is also no judgment involved in this ruling. Simply by rule, it is not a violation until the player touches the ball again.

Exactly. Judgment is used to say this was indeed a shot, and the appropriate penalty is enforced. Using the logic from above, how are we to know that this perceived shot was not instead an alley oop pass to a teammate who failed to make an anticipated cut.

Why is this situation different? If there is no teammate nearby to conceivably receive this "pass" then it is logical to judge this as the start of a dribble. A dribble is defined as pushing the ball to the floor, "once or several times."

There is so much that is incorrect in this post, but I'll try to go through it and set the poster straight. He is probably new to discussing rules and definitions.

1. The definition of an airborne shooter says that the player has released the ball on a try for goal and is yet to return to the floor. Prior to the release of the try there isn't an airborne shooter. So you are wrong to write "an airborne shooter has been fouled" because in the previous post the foul occurred before the release. No airborne shooter at that time.

2. "That means, in your judgment, the offensive player was fouled while in the act of shooting." No, the term airborne shooter does not mean that. It has a specific definition in the NFHS rules book, which I summarized in #1.

3. It is a judgment call by the official to determine whether or not a player was in the act of shooting if he still has the ball, but there is no judgment involved if an airborne player has released the ball and has yet to return to the floor. The player BY DEFINITION is considered in the act of shooting. An official would not be permitted BY RULE to call a common foul against a defender who fouled such a player. Unlike as you claim, there is no judgment involved in such a call.

4. You need to learn the definition of a dribble. It is "ball movement caused by a player in control who bats or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times." No part of the definition states that the player has to touch the ball again after the initial push to the floor for it to be a dribble. He may or may not. What if he tries to touch it again and misses?

5. Given how a dribble is defined in #4, your statement that the violation scenario requires no judgment is totally false. The official must determine if the player initially has control and must also decide if the ball was dropped or fumbled. If dropped, the dropping of the ball may certainly be deemed a dribble by the official according to the above definition.

6. The rules support for the traveling violation is 4-44-3c, which simply says, "The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble." There is no written requirement that the ball be touched again in the rules book. You claim that there is. Please show us where it appears. The current wording of two plays in the case book include "and touches it first after it bounces" in one and "and dribbles" in the other. However, we do not have a case play in which the player fails to touch the ball again, so we know for sure what the call is if the player does that, but the NFHS has not provided a definitive ruling for the situation posed in this thread.

7. The truth is that this is a gray area in the rules. We have had this discussion before. Some would wait until the ball is touched again to call the violation, others state that PER THE RULES a second touch is not necessary.

Guess you have given up on keeping this discussion halfway intelligent. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I know A.R. 106 speaks specifically to the situation:

...when A1 voluntarily drops the ball before returning to the playing court and then touches the ball before
it is touched by another player, A1 has committed a travel violation since the pivot foot was lifted before the ball was released to start a dribble.
(Rule 4-37 and 4-70.4.b)


If there is no distinction why didn't they just say "...when A1 voluntarily drops the ball before returning to the playing court A1 has committed a travel violation since the pivot foot was lifted before the ball was released to start a dribble.
"?


I have a question. If A1 is standing with both feet firmly planted to the floor and A1 voluntarily drops the ball, and the ball is just bouncing in front of him, are you going to grant his HC a time-out during this period of time?

Not sure, I'd have to see the play.

Is the above player, after allowing the ball to "just bounce in front of him," allowed to catch the ball and then "voluntarily drop it" again? No. Because the first drop was the start of a dribble

Why are you not sure?


Player standing all alone, having not yet used a dribble, voluntarily drops the ball to the floor.

Are you granting a time-out?

If he is standing all alone, and the ball is bouncing beside him, why not?
Yes, grant the timeout.

Look, my point is simple, but let me start by stating I agree with Nevada that the rules support is there if you want to call this violation prior to A1 retouching the ball. Whether the drop is a dribble or not is entirely up to the official's judgment.

That said, I will never call this before A1 retouches it. Players are smart, and this is one rule they tend to know. If it's really a dribble, he'll show you by continuing the dribble. If it's a pass, he'll show you by purposefully avoiding the ball; likely boxing out his opponent at the same time to give a teammate time to get to the pass.

Let me change the play slightly.

A1 goes airborne for a shot, realizing it's about to get eaten by a young Dikembe, he throws the ball towards and empty corner of the court. He then proceeds to follow it, where for a few seconds, he's the only player in reach of the ball. You calling the violation if he doesn't touch it?

I wouldn't, but it has nothing to do with your decision on the pass/dribble situation. At most, this would be an interrupted dribble, IMO. It may be right next to him, but if he's allowing multiple bounces between touches, he's not in control of that ball.

Do they? What is the rule? Isn't that what we are debating now?

In my opinion, the "passer" purposely avoiding the ball etc. is not what makes it a pass.

In this case, no. Throwing the ball toward an empty corner of the court bears no resemblance to the player simply dropping the ball to the floor.

This is why I originally said I'd have to see the play, but I don't know why the multiple bounce would automatically mean no control. What if the dribbler raises both hands to make the timeout signal? About the time you see it, the ball is making a second bounce, still right beside the dribbler. You won't grant the timeout here unless the dribbler touches the ball again?

For the purpose of the discussion at hand, an interrupted dribble is still a dribble.

In this situation, I agree. I'm not saying it's automatic, either, just a rule of thumb I use to determine, for example, whether a dribbler is in control when he steps out of bounds.

Which is why i said "but it has nothing to do with your decision on the pass/dribble situation."

The rule is the player can't start a dribble after jumping; players know this or they'd attempt it more. I can't remember any players actually attempting to start a dribble after jumping; not that it hasn't happened, just that to say it's rare is to overstate its frequency.


Why not? We have to base it on something, and this meets the common sense test.

How is it different? In both plays, you have a player purposefully putting the ball where only he has the ability to touch it first and no teammate is in the immediate vicinity. How is it different?

Rules citation? Is the ball "loose"? Has it gotten "away" from the dribbler?