Not true as Jurassic's scenario shows.

It is a dribble. A1 has batted the ball to the floor. That's the definition of a dribble. I'll grant you it is rarely a controlled dribble and generally the ball gets away making it an interrupted dribble.

Now that you mention it, you really are going to end up with one violation or the other.

Nope, I am reading the literal meaning of "player control" the exact same way that the rules makers intended it to be read. If you can't immediately dribble, there is nowayinhell you can have player control at the same time. Quite simply, you can't control the ball if you can't reach it. And intent has never been inserted into the equation either, for reasons that at least to me are quite simple. We aren't mind readers. We have no real idea what any dribbler is actually intending to do. We have to guess their intent. Guessing is never a good officiating practice.

As I said, you're overthinking the heck out of the play imo by inserting your own idea of how the rule should read rather than the way that it actually does read. Intent is never mentioned rules-wise anywhere.

Player control is defined by rule as holding or dribbling the ball. And the rules also state that there is no player control during an interrupted dribble. Are you really trying to tell me that a dribbler still has player control after he batted their dribble over the defender and the dribbler now has that defender between him and the ball?

It may start as a dribble, but it usually becomes an interrupted when the two (ball/player) are separated.

Not always. If the player is OOB due to momentum and they are not actively dribbling the ball, you've got nothing.

Actually, I think that such a player is in control. That move is defined as part of the dribbing rule and is considered part of a dribble. When such a move is executed, the ball handler (dribbler) will, if done correctly, be around the defender when the ball is coming down....hence the part about allowing the ball to bounce. If they don't execute it correctly, then it may become an interupted dribble.

By rule, yes, he has player control because he is dribbling and it isn't, by definition, an interrupted dribble.

Player control is a tightly defined term. You aren't using that definition. Instead, you are using the concept of a player in control of the ball. They are not exactly the same.

The rule says an interrupted dribble happens when "it [the ball] momentarily gets away from the dribbler." In that sentence the ball is the actor. If the dribbler puts the ball where he wants it, it hasn't gotten away. It's been acted on, instead of acting. (Yes, the ball doesn't ever technically act of its own, but I think the way the sentence is structured shows the accidental nature of an interrupted dribble.)

We are required to determine intent throughout the rules. A few examples include intentionally kicking the ball, striking the ball with a fist, causing it to enter and pass through the basket from below (all 9-3-4), leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason (9-3-3), grasp the basket except to prevent injury (10-3-3), intentionally slap or strike the backboard (10-3-4b) and so forth.

It's not easy to determine intent, but that's why we are paid the big bucks.

Maybe so in the context of dribbling. If that is what you meant, fine.

But intent is all over the rules: intentional fouls (fouls "designed" to stop the clok), shooting or not when a foul is called but the ball never leaves the player's hands, kicking the ball, slapping the backboard (attempt, even a poor attempt, to block a shot or not), contact that might be considered flagrant (or just aggressively clumsy), etc.

Nor do they include any statement about a requirement that it be accidental.

I disagree. the phrase "ball gets away" precludes any intentional action on the part of the dribbler. The ball cannot get away by the dribbler's intention. It would be an oxymoron.

No, it doesn't peclude anything. If it said the player "accidentally lets the ball get away," or "player accidentally gives up control," you'd be correct. There's nothing in that statement that precludes intent; except to you.

Players intentionally give up control all the time on plays where the ball goes precisely where they intended it to go.

Intent has absolutely nothing to do with that. If someone throws a pass off the back of B2's head and it goes up through the basket, B2 has violated. B2 had no idea it was even coming much less intent to knock it up through the basket.

You're right. I was passing the intentionally through the rest of the clauses but it really only applies to kicking.

You have to completely change the subject of the sentence to get there. The rule talks about what the ball is doing, not what the player is doing. The difference is important.

What difference does this make? I'm not saying a player can't intentionally give up control. I'm saying a player can't intentionally start an interrupted dribble.

Precedent, that's all. The ball gets away from the player, the rule says nothing about how it happened. Whether it's forced away intentionally, or it accidentally gets away.

The ball doesn't do anything on its own. It's not a Quidditch snitch.

:shrug: I think you're reaching to make the rule fit what you want it to say rather than just read it.

I've never before heard anyone describe a ball that has been forced away as getting away. It's not the common meaning of the term.

You're reading way too much into this rule.