When the ball's motion has clearly been stopped?

Check the rule I quoted above. The ball's motion stopping isn't one of the 5 ways a dribble ends.

Use NFHS rules 4-12-1, 4-15-4(a) and 9-5-2 and break it down.

Did the ball come to rest? According to the OP, yes. By rule(4-15-4a) that ended the dribble. Did the dribbler have player control at that point? Always a judgment call. If you feel that the player maintained player control(i.e. was holding the ball), then you either have a travel while the ball wasn't being dribbled or an illegal second dribble when the player dribbles again after the ball was pinned. If you feel that the dribbler didn't have player control when the ball was pinned, then you can't have a travel without that player control and it's also legal for the dribbler to dribble a second time as per 9-5-2.

Judgment call. Your choice.

In real life, I'm personally going with the no-call. I don't think that the period when the ball was pinned between the opponents comprised player control by the dribbler. Usually when a player has control, they can do something with the ball(pass, shoot, dribble). That's not the case in the situation described.

JMO.

This reminds me of a play that I was involved with several years ago. I am the defender on the post player A1. A2 bounce passes (bad pass) the ball to A1, I reach around (legally mind you, I never foul), I pin the ball against A1's leg, then we both take several steps. A1 never has his hands on the ball. It was a pick up game so I am not sure what we ended up doing.

I disagree here. In this case, the defender, rather than the dribbler causes the ball to come to rest so the condition of 4-15-4a has not been met.

Didn't the ball come to rest while the dribbler was touching it continually with a hand? It not only meets 4-15-4(a), it also meets 4-15-4(b).

The facts from the original post are that the ball came to rest while in contact with the dribbler's hand. That ain't gonna change, no matter what linguistic magic you might try to weave.

The rule requires more than contact with the dribbler's hand. It requires the dribbler to be the cause in both a and b.

So you're calling a travel in the OP?

Um, no. See post #33 above. Ball might be at rest but there isn't any player control imo. And you can't call it a held ball either because the defender didn't have their hand(s) on the ball.

Fair enough. I assume you'll allow a new dribble, then, since another player touched it during the period of lost control.

So?:confused:

Didn't the dribbler cause the ball to come to rest by pinning it on the defender's hip? Didn't the dribbler also allow the ball to come to rest in one hand when it was pinned also?

The question now is whether the dribbler had player control or not when the ball does come to rest. As I said, that is a judgment call.

Yup. As I said, it's a judgment call imo as to whether the dribbler actually had player control when the ball was at rest. And if the dribbler couldn't immediately dribble again or shoot/pass, then I personally can't see where player control was present. And if there's no player control because of a touch by an opponent, rule 9-5 comes into play.

But mileage may vary as it is a judgment call. I'd leave it up to the calling official.

I can buy that; but I really don't think this meets the requirement for resting in his hand when he's trying to push it to the floor. Just me, though.

By my reading of the OP, no the dribbler didn't cause the ball to be pinned, the defender did. This obviously is going to be a judgment call.

If, however, you judge that the dribbler pinned it, you must call traveling. If the dribbler pins it, he has ended his dribble by holding the ball. Since he is holding the ball, he has player control and is subject to the traveling restrictions.

So you have a choice: either the dribble didn't end because A1 isn't holding the ball or A1 lifted and returned his pivot foot to the floor while holding the ball.

The rule you cite defines what a player may or may not do while holding the ball but exactly where do the rules define "holding"? That is really the essence of this situation.