In a sentence

[bainsey]

I'm trying to phrase a rule in one sentence for someone. Tell me if you think this works....

"Touching an opponent's dribble doesn't end that dribble if player control is not lost."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I'm trying to phrase a rule in one sentence for someone. Tell me if you think this works....

"Touching an opponent's dribble doesn't end that dribble if player control is not lost."

That would not work. They clarified that if the ball is touched by an opponent, then the dribble has ended. So that sentence would be wrong.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That would not work. They clarified that if the ball is touched by an opponent, then the dribble has ended. So that sentence would be wrong.

Peace

Reference, please. The plain language of 4-15-4(d) backs up bainsey:

"The dribble ends when...
(d) The ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to
lose control."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I'm trying to phrase a rule in one sentence for someone. Tell me if you think this works....

"Touching an opponent's dribble doesn't end that dribble if player control is not lost."

Oh, that's easy. False. Next question?

[bainsey]

Okay then. Here's the question that spurned it all...

While A–1 is dribbling past an opponent the ball touches the opponent without loss of control by A–1. A–1 catches the ball and starts another dribble. Official rules this a legal play. Is the official correct?

A YES answer was judged to be incorrect. Who can come up with a sentence why?

[SamIAm]

[QUOTE=bainsey;688001]Okay then. Here's the question that spurned it all...

While A–1 is dribbling past an opponent the ball touches the opponent without loss of control by A–1. A–1 catches the ball and starts another dribble. Official rules this a legal play. Is the official correct? QUOTE]

"Without loss of control" is a htbt. Similar to "contact occurred", was there a foul?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

"Without loss of control" is a htbt. Similar to "contact occurred", was there a foul?

Well that didn't make any sense.

When "without loss of control" is part of the question, it's being GIVEN to you that whoever was ruling on the play felt it was without loss of control. Kind of hard to "be there" when the hypothetical is from a test or quiz question, or approved ruling, or such.

[Scrapper1]

The clarification that came out a couple years ago was that the loss of control that ended a dribble could occur due to any type of contact by an opponent. Previously, the rule stated that the dribble ended when loss of control was caused by an opponent batting the ball, specifically requiring an intentional use of the opponent's hands.

Loss of control has always been needed (for this part of the rule) to end the dribble. Now, however, any type of contact by an opponent can cause the loss of control, and thus end the dribble.

So in the original question, since the official judged that the dribbler never lost player control, the dribble did not end. This ruling would have been correct even without the clarification.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Well that didn't make any sense.

When "without loss of control" is part of the question, it's being GIVEN to you that whoever was ruling on the play felt it was without loss of control. Kind of hard to "be there" when the hypothetical is from a test or quiz question, or approved ruling, or such.

I see your point.
I was thinking more along the lines of judging loss of control. That seems very difficult. If one can see whether the ball was touched or deflected, it should be noticable the ball did not go where the dribbler propelled the ball, albeit possibly only a slight deflection. Without seeing a play to judge, I would lean toward loss of control being a usual occurrence in this situation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bainsey

"Touching an opponent's dribble doesn't end that dribble if player control is not lost."

"An opponent touching a dribble doesn't end that dribble unless player control is lost."

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

"An opponent touching a dribble doesn't end that dribble unless player control is lost."

I think that's the sentence that sums up the question, and why it's not legal.

[BillyMac]

I'm sorry guys, but I'm just a little confused by this thread.

A1 is dribbling the ball, and decides to pick up his dribble with two hands firmly on the ball, thus ending the dribble. Defender B1 reaches in and attempts to steal the ball from A1, but A1 is able to pull the ball away from B1 and B1 is only able to lightly touch the ball. A1 does not lose the ball, but is able to keep two hands on the ball. Three-quarters of a second later, A1 decides to start a new dribble. I've got an illegal dribble violation here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now let's get really "weird" here. A2 picks up her dribble, thus ending the dribble. During a pivot, A2 somehow fumbles the ball, which takes a few bounces on the floor, and also accidentally hits defender B2 in the back of the leg. A2 now picks up the ball. A2 decides at this point to start a new dribble. What do you have here?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm sorry guys, but I'm just a little confused by this thread.

A1 is dribbling the ball, and decides to pick up his dribble with two hands firmly on the ball, thus ending the dribble. Defender B1 reaches in and attempts to steal the ball from A1, but A1 is able to pull the ball away from B1 and B1 is only able to lightly touch the ball. A1 does not lose the ball, but is able to keep two hands on the ball. Three-quarters of a second later, A1 decides to start a new dribble. I've got an illegal dribble violation here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now let's get really "weird" here. A2 picks up her dribble, thus ending the dribble. During a pivot, A1 somehow fumbles the ball, which takes a few bounces on the floor, and also accidentally hits defender B2 in the back of the leg, before A1 re-establishes possession of the ball. A2 decides at this point to start a new dribble. What do you have here?

BillyMac, each of the provisions of 4-15-4 is SUFFICIENT to end the dribble -- it's never the case that you need all of them or even more than one. So once the dribble ends for ANY reason, it's illegal to start a new dribble.

So in your first play, the dribble ends by 4-15-4(a). When the player holding the ball begins a new dribble, the second dribble is illegal. The provisions of 4-15-4(d) -- and the opponent touching the ball -- don't enter this play, since the dribble has already ended before an opponent touches the ball.

Your second play meets the requirements of 9-5-3, and is thus a legal dribble.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Your second play meets the requirements of 9-5-3, and is thus a legal dribble.

NFHS 9-5: A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
ART. 1 . . . A try for field goal.
ART. 2 . . . A touch by an opponent.
ART. 3 . . . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player.

mbyron: Thanks.

[Mark Padgett]

Let me throw this into the mix just to confuse things even more. A1 is dribbling the ball. B1 touches the ball. During the time that B1 is touching the ball, A1 fouls B1. Would you call a player control foul on A1? Remember - player control is defined as holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.