True. You said the statement was wrong.

But you were wrong.

They statement was wrong as an all or nothing statement. Which is why those do not work very well to learn rules. There are often exceptions to such statements. And when you can come up with exceptions, then the statement does not work. If you want to say that is wrong, then so be it. Once again I do not have to deal with you outside of this board, so what you think ultimately means little. Take it for what it is worth and move on yourself.

Peace

What is the exception to this statement?

For those less familiar with the subject, this rule was changed a few years ago after a lengthy discussion we had about it. Formerly, it stated only a bat by an opponent ended the dribble, but it now reads that the dribble ends when "the ball touches or is touched by the opponent and causes the dribbler to lose control."

For what it is worth, I do agree with what I think Rut is saying, that it would be rare for the touch by an opponent not to end the dribble, and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the dribbler.

But the original statement by bainsey in the OP is unquestionably true, and there is no exception.

There aren't any exceptions to the original statement by bainsey. What he wrote is 100% true according to the NFHS rule. Rut is simply incorrect.

I can't think of any exceptions either.

I'm glad that you guys are having this discussion

Last season I had a play where A1 was dribbling, decided to cross over, but instead of crossing over with a dribble, he just changed hands with the ball (it was an intramural game so you can guess at the skill level of the player). During the changing of hands, B1 reached in and touched the ball, but it did not cause A1 to lose control of the ball. As soon as he took another dribble, I called the illegal dribble violation. He looked at me and said, "but he touched it."

Later I asked an official who was my senior if I had made the wrong call with the touch, and he said yes, "the dribble ends if the ball is touched by an opponent."

This post clarifies a lot for me, and lets me know that I made the right call originally.

I'm confused. At what point did A1 end his dribble so that an illegal dribble would be called?

I have never seen a player dribble the ball and have an opponent (especially purposely) touch the ball and not lose some control of the ball. Now I guess it is your judgment if control is lost, but I have yet to see this. Then again I do not officiate intermural ball, so I am sure all kinds of things take place there I will never see. ;)

Peace

I think...emphasis on "think"....that he's saying that A1 touched the ball with both hands during the same dribble, with one touch each before and after the defensive touch.

That is exactly what happened.

This makes my brain hurt.
Did A1 catch the ball after B1 touched it, then proceed to start a new dribble?
I'm trying to picture JR's scenario, and I can't imagine the sort of ball movement necessary for that to happen would not cause me to consider control lost, even momentarily.

A1 was dribbling with his right hand.....B1 touched the ball during this dribble after the ball left the dribbler's right hand but the touch did not cause A1 to lose control....A1 then touched the ball with his left hand after the defensive touch but before the dribbled ball hit the floor. Iow, A1 touched the ball twice during the same dribble. Always a judgment call but if the official rules that the defensive touching didn't cause the dribbler to lose control, then the dribble never ended and the dribbler is called for touching the ball twice during the same dribble. Correct call by rule.

Okay, I'm picturing this now. I'm with Rut, only in intramural ball.