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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Not true as Jurassic's scenario shows.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Intent is never mentioned rules-wise anywhere.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

We are required to determine intent throughout the rules. A few examples ...
causing it to enter and pass through the basket from below
(all 9-3-4)
...

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

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

: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.