Double Dribble or.....

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Player A1 catches the ball while facing the basket without dribbling. After holding the ball for a couple seconds, the ball comes out of his hands and hits the floor. Player A1 takes a couple of steps and regains possession of the ball. A1 then proceeds to dribble.

"Tweet" from C across the floor. The call is double dribble. When asked why he did not consider this to be a fumble, C replied that since the player was in complete control of the ball and the defense was nowhere near the ball, the action by the player constituted a dribble. Therefore, the dribble after gathering the ball amounted to a double dribble.

Trail (ball was in his primary) felt that the loss of control amounted to a fumble which would explain why he had nothing.

What say you?

Originally Posted by kopan99

Legal... you can fumble-dribble-fumble (but you can't dribble-fumble-dribble)

As you can see from the red comment above, the C felt it was a dribble-dribble NOT a fumble-dribble.

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

I'm not sure why some think that a drop is a dribble. That one was frustrating as a coach when it was called and even MORE frustrating as an official when your partner calls it in your primary.

That is the point/question, here. Based on what the play described, one of my normal partners (the trail in this play) saw this as a simple loss of control of the ball -- hence a fumble.

The C (filling in for me due to my knee surgery last week) felt that once a player has clear control of the ball -- and clearly the defense did not play a role in the ball's release (Snaqs, that's the only reason the proximity of the defense played a role in this scenario) -- the release of the ball constituted a dribble. He cited 4-15-3 "The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor" as the reason the release amounted to a dribble. My partner (and I) cited 4-15-1 "A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s) or pushes the ball to floor once or several times" as the reason the trail did NOT call a violation on this play.

We agree with Johnsonboy03 that this is actually a fumble since the act was not intentional.

SLIGHTLY MODIFIED SITUATION: Player A1 catches the ball while facing the basket without dribbling. After holding the ball for a couple seconds, the player fakes a dribble while moving his/her hands in a downward motion to the ground and returns his/her hands to their previous position. The player then repeats the movement. This time, while the hands are moving downward, the ball comes out of his/her hands and hits the floor. Player A1 takes a couple of steps and regains possession of the ball. A1 then proceeds to dribble.

The ball is in the T's primary and feels the ball has been released accidentally and constituted a fumble. As the C, you saw the action and called a double dribble (as the ball clearly appeared to have been "pushed to the floor" by A1). Perhaps just one more reason why it is important to trust your partners.....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

SLIGHTLY MODIFIED SITUATION: Player A1 catches the ball while facing the basket without dribbling. After holding the ball for a couple seconds, the player fakes a dribble while moving his/her hands in a downward motion to the ground and returns his/her hands to their previous position. The player then repeats the movement. This time, while the hands are moving downward, the ball comes out of his/her hands and hits the floor. Player A1 takes a couple of steps and regains possession of the ball. A1 then proceeds to dribble.

Nothing has changed. It's still a judgment call by the calling official as to whether there was a fumble or not. And it doesn't matter how many times a player fakes a dribble either. You adjudicate the play solely on the play, not on something that happened before the play.

The issue seems to be that you think that your judgment is better than the calling official. Could be, but I don't think that anybody can honestly agree or disagree with you without actually seeing the play. And even then, who says that my or their judgment would really be any better than yours? And vice-versa.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nothing has changed. It's still a judgment call by the calling official as to whether there was a fumble or not. And it doesn't matter how many times a player fakes a dribble either. You adjudicate the play solely on the play, not on something that happened before the play.

The issue seems to be that you think that your judgment is better than the calling official. Could be, but I don't think that anybody can honestly agree or disagree with you without actually seeing the play. And even then, who says that my or their judgment would really be any better than yours? And vice-versa.

Not in this case, JR. I wasn't there. My judgment is irrelevant. Since it is a judgment call, jumping out of one's primary like this makes it questionable from my point of view.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Since it is a judgment call, jumping out of one's primary like this makes it questionable from my point of view.

Fer sure, that act is questionable. If you're gonna do something like that, imo (1) it had better be for something that absolutely had to be called, and (2) you'd better be right every single time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Fer sure, that act is questionable. If you're gonna do something like that, imo (1) it had better be for something that absolutely had to be called, and (2) you'd better be right every single time.

Yep, and I don't see how a marginal (at best) illegal dribble call can ever qualify for #1.