Dribbler goes out of bounds & is first to touch the ball again

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But it is possible for a dribbler, not an interrupted dribbler, to step out of bounds, while not in contact with the ball, which is bouncing in bounds, and be in violation of the out of bounds a rule.

While true, that doesn't have anything to do with the poster's question, because all parties have agreed that the player had STOPPED dribbling when he stepped out of bounds.

[RefLarry]

Originally Posted by RefLarry

A1 loses control of his/her dribble and A1 goes completely out of bounds. The ball remains bouncing on the floor (inbounds). A1 re-establishes both feet inbounds and is the first person to touch the ball. Is this play legal?

I should have mentioned that A1 left the floor involuntarily. A1s momentum carried her OOB. I mentioned two feet were re-established inbounds but even if only one were established that should not affect the call.

Thank you for all the replies. I thought the play was legal. My partner made the violation call. I have seen this sitiuation happen more than once.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefLarry

I should have mentioned that A1 left the floor involuntarily. A1s momentum carried her OOB. I mentioned two feet were re-established inbounds but even if only one were established that should not affect the call.

Thank you for all the replies. I thought the play was legal. My partner made the violation call. I have seen this sitiuation happen more than once.

Of all the basketball myths, this seems to be one that most pervades the ranks of officials. Between this one and the "all non-shooters must go on the other side of the division line for Technical or Intentional foul free throws" myth, I can't tell which has more officials hoodwinked.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Of all the basketball myths, this seems to be one that most pervades the ranks of officials. Between this one and the "all non-shooters must go on the other side of the division line for Technical or Intentional foul free throws" myth, I can't tell which has more officials hoodwinked.

Why don't you just put it up on a tee so Billy can hit it out of the park.......

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Why don't you just put it up on a tee so Billy can hit it out of the park.

See post #9, Paragraph 2.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by RefLarry

I should have mentioned that A1 left the floor involuntarily. A1s momentum carried her OOB. I mentioned two feet were re-established inbounds but even if only one were established that should not affect the call.

Thank you for all the replies. I thought the play was legal. My partner made the violation call. I have seen this sitiuation happen more than once.

While this is generally the case, the obvious situation makes this statement potentially incorrect. A1 must have at least one foot inbounds, BUT cannot have the other out of bounds.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And that's completely legal. There's nothing in the definition of an interrupted dribble that says it has to be an accidentally loss of control.

4-15-5
An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler.

The play you posted is legal.

If the ball is bouncing where A1 wants it to bounce, it hasn't gotten away from the dribbler. I don't think an intentional act can fit the definition of "gets away from the dribbler."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If the ball is bouncing where A1 wants it to bounce, it hasn't gotten away from the dribbler. I don't think an intentional act can fit the definition of "gets away from the dribbler."

I disagree; if he's more than arms reach from it, he's given up control.
If he's allowing it to bounce multiple times between touches, I'd say he's given up control. Ample opportunity for a defender to take it, IMO.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree; if he's more than arms reach from it, he's given up control.
If he's allowing it to bounce multiple times between touches, I'd say he's given up control. Ample opportunity for a defender to take it, IMO.

But the definition of an interrupted dribble is not ample opportunity for a defender or even giving up control. It's a deflection of the dribble or a ball getting away from the dribbler. Both of these are accidental, not intentional.

There's simply no provision in the rules to intentionally cause an interrupted dribble.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree; if he's more than arms reach from it, he's given up control.
If he's allowing it to bounce multiple times between touches, I'd say he's given up control. Ample opportunity for a defender to take it, IMO.

+1

The FED defined an interrupted dribble a long, long time ago. They said your dribble was interrupted if you could not immediately dribble again. And that's also why there's no player control during an interrupted dribble. If you can't immediately dribble the ball, quite obviously you also can't have player control of the ball at the same time.

The rule says that the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler during an interrupted dribble. Intent on the part of dribbler has never been a part of that definition. Thank God too for that. Mind reading ain't one of my strengths.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

+1

The FED defined an interrupted dribble a long, long time ago. They said your dribble was interrupted if you could not immediately dribble again. And that's also why there's no player control during an interrupted dribble. If you can't immediately dribble the ball, quite obviously you also can't have player control of the ball at the same time.

The rule says that the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler during an interrupted dribble. Intent on the part of dribbler has never been a part of that definition. Thank God too for that. Mind reading ain't one of my strengths.

If I leave the ball, has it gotten away from me?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

There's simply no provision in the rules to intentionally cause an interrupted dribble.

See NFHS rule 4-15-2. A dribbler can batt the ball over the head of the defender and then legally run around the defender and dribble again, as long as he has lets the ball bounce once or several times after the batt. The period between the batt and the continuance of the dribble is an interrupted dribble. It momentarily got away from the dribbler, by rules definition, and there is no player control during that time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If I leave the ball, has it gotten away from me?

By rule definition, it sure has. The rule simply says "momentarily gets away from the dribbler". Intent has never been mentioned as being any part of that definition.

You're thinking waaaaaaaay too much on this one, Eastshire, imho. You're trying to read something into the rule....intent.... that just isn't there.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See NFHS rule 4-15-2. A dribbler can batt the ball over the head of the defender and then legally run around the defender and dribble again, as long as he has lets the ball bounce once or several times after the batt. The period between the batt and the continuance of the dribble is an interrupted dribble. It momentarily got away from the dribbler, by rules definition, and there is no player control during that time.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

By rule definition, it sure has. The rule simply says "momentarily gets away from the dribbler". Intent has never been mentioned as being any part of that definition.

You're thinking waaaaaaaay too much on this one, Eastshire, imho. You're trying to read something into the rule....intent.... that just isn't there.

Maybe I am, but I don't think so. I think you are reading a specified distance into the rule that isn't there.

Your scenario isn't an interrupted dribble. It's just a dribble. The player is controlling the ball. It hasn't gotten away from him.

The common meaning of the phrase "gets away" is unintentional movement. If the player puts the ball where he wants it the ball has not gotten away. The rules do not include any statement about the ball being outside of an arm's reach or any other distance.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Maybe I am, but I don't think so. I think you are reading a specified distance into the rule that isn't there.

Your scenario isn't an interrupted dribble. It's just a dribble. The player is controlling the ball. It hasn't gotten away from him.

The common meaning of the phrase "gets away" is unintentional movement. If the player puts the ball where he wants it the ball has not gotten away. The rules do not include any statement about the ball being outside of an arm's reach or any other distance.

No dribbler wants the ball at a location where they can't reach it.

In the case of a dribbler going OOB but leaving the ball inbounds, that is a matter of judgement.

It is a matter of the "choices" A1 has. It is not a matter of distance (although distance can be a clue) or the number of bounces (but that too can be a clue), but a matter of continuous control....of both the ball and player location.

In the event A1 leaves the ball and goes OOB because of momentum, they are not choosing to go OOB. Batting the ball back inbounds until they can return is NOT a dribble. It is an attempt ot save the ball from going OOB. Since they've not ended the dribble, they can resume it upon returning.

However, if A1, while fully in control, chooses to bounce the ball to some location and goes OOB around a defender to get to the ball, A1 has violated.....call it either an OOB violation or leaving the court without authorization, but it the result is the same.