You have it backwards.

If you don't meet the definition of "anything" you have performed an illegal "anything". If you met the definition of an "anything", that, by definition, means it was legal.

You can have either legal contact or illegal contact, however. Illegal contact is contact that is not don't within the legal range of contact.

An illegal dribble is an action that, in most ways, fits the act of a legal dribble but has some element that does not....making it an illegal dribble. (Or is a drible at a time when it is not permitted---after the player has already dribbled). It just so happens that we give one of them a specific name (carry/palm) even though it doesn't need on since it is really the ending an restarting of a 2nd dribble.


And I think that is why the referenced case play was changed to traveling instead of an illegal dribble.....that the movement of the feet is the defining factor.

Incorrect, sir. By this logic, a pass would be an illegal dribble, because the action doesn't meet the definition of a dribble.

You can't have illegal contact without contact first. You can't have an illegal use of hands without a use of hands. The "anything" must occur first for the action to be deemed illegal.

Illegal actions are also defined. Rule 9-5 spells out an illegal dribble.

Meeting the definition is a prerequisite for determining whether an action was legal or illegal.

Yup.

And if the ball was released, rule 4-15-3 now applies....The dribble may be STARTED by pushing throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted." Anything that happens after the ball leaves the hand(s) on that dribble start now falls into "during the dribble". And the ball was then touched twice during one dribble, which is a violation.

A pass is a pass when it touches another player. You have lost me here.



9-5 could also use some work. According to 9-5, the only violation is to start another dribble after the dribble ends. Yet, what we are discussing,
(touching the ball a second time before it touches the floor) is not one of the things that ends a dribble.

Huh?

4-15-1: "A dribble is ball movement (check) caused by a player in control (check) who bats or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times."

4-15-2: "During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)." This is where the OP violated. If the ball had hit the floor, then all of the points in 4-15-1 would have been met, and therefore it would be a dribble.

Already covered exactly under 4.15.4 Sit E (a). It is not a violation because the pivot foot has never been lifted.


Actually, in the 2006-07 case book, it is listed as a dribble violation. It was subsequentially changed to be a traveling violation, but count me as one of the ones who doesn't understand why. :) It is a rule fundamental that a player cannot travel during a dribble.

So, let's say we call it that A1 "threw the ball somewhere", instead of calling it a dribble. There's 4.15.4 Sit C: "After dribbling and coming to a stop, A1 throws the ball: (a) against the opponent's backboard and catches the rebound, or (b) against an official, immediately recovers the ball and dribbles again. RULING: A1 has violated in both (a) and (b). Throwing the ball against an opponent's backboard or an official constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is the first to touch the ball after it strikes the official or the board." Again, another example of how the rule definition of dribble doesn't necessarily follow the accepted action of simply bouncing the ball on the floor, but it certainly includes that action.

According to your logic, anything that does not meet the definition of the action is an illegal something. I say that simply doesn't work, and I used the dribble/pass analogy to point that out. Anything that doesn't meet the definition of "anything" isn't an "illegal anything"; it's just not that "anything."

I think you miss my point. Your contention that anything that meets a definition is legal is disputed via 9-5, which defines an illegal action.

But I agree, there are a number of rules that could use a little work.

There we go. That was my point. If it didn't hit the floor (or more correctly, there was no push or throw toward it), it wasn't a dribble. (Notice you didn't mark "(check)" in 4-15-1 after "to the floor.") And if it's not a dribble, it can't be an illegal dribble. That's probably why it got changed to a "travel."

As for Case 4.15.4C, the opponent's backboard and officials count as the floor, hence counting as a dribble. It makes sense, really. To some, we're as valuable as a floorboard.

Ok, you lost me. Of course, it's not a dribble because it's an illegal dribble. I didn't check the "towards the floor", because that's what made it a violation - it was touched again by the same player before it hit the floor.

Cannot tell you why it was changed to a travel, as it is a rule fundamental that a player cannot travel during a dribble. The case play is still under the "dribble" section of the rules, and the play does not violate any pivot foot restrictions, which is of course, the basis for any traveling violation.

A player in control can hold, dribble, pass, shoot, or fumble on their own. You still maintain that it is not a dribble. Since the player has control, what is the player's action called then? And what rule do you use to specify what that action is called?

Ah, there lies where we part ways.

Your viewpoint: It's illegal, because it's not a dribble.
My viewpoint: It can't be an illegal dribble, until it's a dribble first. THEN, you determine whether it's legal or illegal.

And since it never was a dribble, it can't be an illegal dribble; therefore, travelling applies.

I can see your sticking point here. The best description I can provide is that the ball was touched twice, in two different places. (Initially, I thought travelling didn't apply, because there were no feet on the floor on the first touch, but I've since been proven wrong.) Two touches in two places without an established dribble = travelling, since the dribble never took place.

Uh, no. A player can dribble, and I still maintain it's not a dribble? Now you lost me.

The ball was released (pushed, batted) on it's way to the floor, that's what makes it a dribble, per 4-15-1 and 4-15-2. The fact that it never made it to the floor without being touched a second time by the same player then makes it a violation.

Unfortunately, you have no rules backing for the above statement. Where is that mentioned in 4-44, or any of the 4.44 case plays?

C'mon now - see in red above.

Again, you are maintaining it was never a dribble. So what was the action? And what rule do you use to back either assertion?

That is impossible...

Why? To be a "dribble" first means it has fit the definition of a dribble and is, therefore, not illegal (except for a 2nd dribble after the first has ended).

So, to ever have an illegal dribble other than a second dribble, the term illegal dribble can't depend on it being a dribble first.

I think the name of this particular violation (illegal dribble) is confusing the issue. You say that you cannot have an illegal dribble without first having a dribble. Consider other violations.

You cannot have traveling without first having a ______???

carry on bag?

Hey, Mark!

Hock mier en chinik

:D

I contend the same of you, sir.

Rule 4-15-1 clearly says a dribble commences when a ball is batted or pushed "to the floor." Rule 4-15-2 talked about a ball that was "batted," then striking the floor. Neither happened here, nor was there intent to get it to the floor. It was an intended throw to oneself, which is not a pass, nor is it a dribble, either.

I want to say travelling, but there's a problem with the aforementioned Case 4.15.4E(b). I have my hands on the latest NFHS rule/case book (2009-10), and there's no such (b) under 4.15.4E. Does anyone have the correct case number?

I certainly understand your it's-one-or-the-other paradigm, M&M, but I'm not about to call something it clearly isn't.

Better yet, consider any sports phrase with "illegal" in it:

*In basketball and football, an illegal use of hands requires a use of hands.
*In football, an illegal formation requires a formation.
*In hockey, an illegal stick certainly can't happen without a stick in question.
*And back to basketball: A player dribbles, holds the ball, then dribbles again. The second dribble is an illegal dribble. (I don't see what's so impossible about that, Cam.) Or, if you're touching the ball twice before it hits the ground, you're dribbling illegally.

The word "illegal" does not negate the noun. It recongizes the noun, or action, as being illegal.

Whatever you choose to call it, an intended throw to oneself is illegal.

Consider the following. A1 has ended his dribble. B1 rushes up. A1 momentarily forgets he has no dribble and tries to drive around B1. The ball strikes B1's foot before touching the floor, then goes out of bounds and hits the bleachers. What do you call?