rebound, pass

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

And if it's not a dribble, it can't be an illegal dribble.

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.

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's probably why it got changed to a "travel."

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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, you lost me. Of course, it's not a dribble because it's an illegal dribble.

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.

Cannot tell you why it was changed to a travel, as it is a rule fundamental that a player cannot travel during a dribble.

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

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.

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.

A player in control can hold, dribble, pass, shoot, or fumble on their own. You still maintain that it is not a dribble.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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 (sic), since the dribble never took place.

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?

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Unfortunately, you have no rules backing for the above statement.

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.

So what was the action? And what rule do you use to back either assertion?

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think the name of this particular violation (illegal dribble) is confusing the issue. ... Consider other violations.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It was an intended throw to oneself, which is not a pass, nor is it a dribble, either.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

a plumber?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

a plumber?

C'mon, play along.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

Illegal dribble, of course. Why would we call anything else?

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

There is no such thing as an "intended throw to oneself" in the rules. That's where you're trying to define an action with a term not found in the rules.

Oh? We certainly found it in the case book play you mentioned, and according to the 2008-09 book, it's specifically calls this travelling.

BINGO! You've finally got it!

Finally, eh? Me, eh? Condescending comments aren't cool, particularly when they're inaccurate. Since the case book has shown that there was no dribble in the play, and it is indeed travelling, I believe I've made my point.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Illegal dribble, of course. Why would we call anything else?


Oh? We certainly found it in the case book play you mentioned, and according to the 2008-09 book, it's specifically calls this travelling.


Finally, eh? Me, eh? Condescending comments aren't cool, particularly when they're inaccurate. Since the case book has shown that there was no dribble in the play, and it is indeed travelling, I believe I've made my point.

Sorry, did not mean to be condescending; maybe I was still grumpy from having to work on a day where my kids tell me they're having fun at the pool. Didn't mean to take it out on you.

If you've been around here long enough, you know there are a couple of instances where interps are made or changed without any basis in the basic rules. This is, in my opinion, one of them. I pointed out the exact case play had been called an illegal dribble back in the '06-'07 case book, and the action fits the definition of an illegal dribble - touching the ball twice before it hits the ground. However, either last year, or the year before, it was moved to the traveling section of the rules. My feeling it was moved because of the first part of that case (a) - the one where A1 throws the ball back and forth between hands while keeping the pivot foot down - this fits the scenario of deciding travel or not, because it involves a pivot foot.

The second part, (b), does not fit anywhere in the definition of a travel. Traveling is, per 4-44: "...moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of the prescribed limits while holding the ball". This is why the case play is not a travel. It even says, "since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal." It does not mention anything about a pivot foot, or moving feet in excess of prescribed limits, which is the very definition of traveling.

We agree it's violation. We just disagree which violation. It's too bad you and the NFHS are wrong in this case.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Illegal dribble, of course. Why would we call anything else?

Because it didn't touch the floor. It seemed to be your contention above that the violation was not an illegal dribble because it wasn't a dribble because it was not pushed/thrown to the floor.

Also, in other threads, some say it is not a violation in this case until it returns from the floor and is touched again by the dribbler. Otherwise, it might have been a pass. I do not agree with this.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It was an intended throw to oneself, which is not a pass, nor is it a dribble, either.

There is no such thing as an "intended throw to oneself" in the rules. That's where you're trying to define an action with a term not found in the rules. The action as described in the OP is covered under the rules involving dribbling - see 4.15.4 Sit C (a) and (b), and 4.15.4 Sit D (a) for other similar actions.

4.15.4 Sit E, as shown in the 2006-07 Case book: "(a) A1 tosses the ball from one hand to the other while keeping his/her pivot foot in contact with the floor; or (b) A1 throws the ball over the head of B1, then takes several steps before catching it. RULING: Legal in (a) but an illegal dribble violation in (b). In (b), since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is an illegal dribble. (9-5)."

This case is now shown as 4.44.3 Sit D (a) and (b). The difference is, in (b), even though it no longer calls it an illegal dribble, it doesn't say it's a travel either. (Granted, it's in the traveling section.)

The current case book Sit E was Sit F in the 2006-07 case book.

Originally Posted by bainsey

Or, if you're touching the ball twice before it hits the ground, you're dribbling illegally.

BINGO! You've finally got it!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Ah, there lies where we part ways.
My viewpoint: It can't be an illegal dribble, until it's a dribble first. THEN, you determine whether it's legal or illegal.

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.