|
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." |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
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? |
Quote:
"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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 ???
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Confused ???
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Pass Or Fumble ???
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Notice that 9-5-3 is satisfied when the passed or fumbled ball touches or is touched by another player. That player need not be an opponent. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Congratulations, Mike, and enjoy the hell out of him/her. Boy or girl? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
True. You said the statement was wrong. But you were wrong. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38am. |