In a sentence
 

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

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

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?

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."

[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?

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.

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.

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

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.

What ???
 

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 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

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.

You highlighted the wrong part of my response.

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".

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.