Question to ponder
 

Does the three points principal apply to an interrupted dribble?

My first thought would be to say no.

Which principal is that? Maybe this one?

[IMG]http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/movie-*******s2/ed-rooney.jpg[/IMG]

How cool is that: the forum censor blocks bad words in links! Here's the image:

http://tinyurl.com/26svkqt

Is there PC during an interrupted dribble? If not, then there really isn't a "dribble." So, the three-points rule can't apply.

I'll bite. Three points principle? (Perhaps I call it something else.)

"During a driblle from BC to FC, the ball is not in the FC until the ball and both feet of the dribbler are in the FC" (or something like that).

Rule 4-Ball Location

Thanks, Bob.

Here's a case where I would say YES....

A1 dribbles, backing into the FC from BC. His feet are now FC, but the ball is BC. The ball takes a strange bounce and gets away from A1, but the ball remains in the BC. A1 goes back to continue the dribble.

I would say that's legal, because the ball never gained FC status.

Yes legal. The ball never made FC status because of the 3 pt principle. A1 established BC when he retrieves the ball in the backcourt.

Ok, how about this.
A1 dribbling in the BC. The ball gets away from him (hits his toe) and bounces towards the sideline, in the FC. He goes towards the sideline to retrieve it, but never leaves the BC. He then reaches across the division line and continues his dribble.

Legal, but don't forget to continue the 10 second backcourt count.

My first thought is it is missing the last to touch part of a backcourt violation. But this brings us back to the interp that we all hate. I guess A1 commits both actions (last to touch and first to touch) simultaneously. So my current thought is that this is a violation based on the interp.

I've had time to ponder some more. Simple backcourt violation. 9-9-2.

While I agree with your result, your reasoning in red is not correct.

The ball gained FC status when it bounced in the FC.

The ball returned to the BC when A1 picked it up while standing in the BC.

A1's last to touch before the ball returned to the BC occurred when it bounced off of A1's toe....not when A1 picked up the ball.

A1, having picked it up in the backcourt, was then the first to touched it after it gained BC status.


If instead, the ball had bounced off of B1's toe and everything else was the same, it would be legal.

It would?

The ball bounces off of B1's toe.

The ball gained FC status when it bounced in the FC.

The ball returned to the BC when A1 picked it up while standing in the BC.

A1, having picked it up in the backcourt, was then the first to touched it after it gained BC status.

But B1 was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it returned to the BC....thus no violation.

Old Dog, Old Tricks ...
 

That reminds me. I had a play last week. A1 is dribbling the ball in his frontcourt. B1, playing at the elbow in a simple zone defense, takes a swipe at the ball which slowly bounces deep into the backcourt. A1, with no defender anywhere near him, takes his sweet time going back to get the ball, finally picks up the ball deep in the backcourt, and starts a dribble to bring the ball back upcourt.

When did I start my ten second count? When A1 picked up the ball in the backcourt to start a new dribble. Immediately after I started the count I said to myself, "Self. Because of posts on the Forum you should know better than that". I was probably the only one in the gym who knew that I screwed up.