In a sentence

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 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.

Reference please.

If a player ends his dribble, and then reaches out with two hands on the ball and touches the jersey of an opponent with the ball, then he can legally start another dribble?

[JRutledge]

I guess I cannot imagine you touching the ball and not losing the dribble. I would think based on the rhythm of the action that would be disrupt that action and cause some sort of control loss. And I would not use a statement that might apply to a very rare situation where control is not lost. Stick with the rule and stop always trying to find a term that applies to everything. Very rare is that going to ever apply.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

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

Originally Posted by mbyron

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."

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess I cannot imagine you touching the ball and not losing the dribble. I would think based on the rhythm of the action that would be disrupt that action and cause some sort of control loss. And I would not use a statement that might apply to a very rare situation where control is not lost. Stick with the rule and stop always trying to find a term that applies to everything. Very rare is that going to ever apply.

Peace

Please just admit that you were wrong about the rule, for once, and then move on.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We were not talking about a rule, we were talking about a statement.

True. You said the statement was wrong.

But you were wrong.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Reference please.

If a player ends his dribble, and then reaches out with two hands on the ball and touches the jersey of an opponent with the ball, then he can legally start another dribble?

I don't have a reference; sorry.

But in your play, A1 never loses control (he was holding it the whole time).

The clarification (I believe it was listed as an editorial change) made it so that any time there is a loss of player control and the ball touches another player, then the dribble ends.

In other words, instead of the requirement being loss of control and B1 batting the ball, now the requirement is merely touching. The reason it was listed as an editorial change is because the "change" is consistent with the way the game has been called for years.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Reference please.

If a player ends his dribble, and then reaches out with two hands on the ball and touches the jersey of an opponent with the ball, then he can legally start another dribble?

You highlighted the wrong part of my response.

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.

Holding the ball and touching the ball to another player is not a loss of player control. So the answer to your question is "no".

[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.