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

[mbyron]

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?

There is a worrisome case here, but it's not this one. The key to your case is the judgment that A1 lost control of the dribble. At that point, A1 can be OOB, return inbounds (something in and nothing out), and then touch the ball legally.

The worrisome case is the one where A1 does NOT lose control of his dribble, but sees that he will go OOB. He stops dribbling, steps OOB, steps back in, and resumes dribbling. That's an OOB violation on A1, who retains player control while dribbling.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

He stops dribbling, steps OOB, steps back in, and resumes dribbling. That's an OOB violation on A1, who retains player control while dribbling.

How can these two things both be true?

[just another ref]

The other possible violation would be that A1 deliberately ran out of bounds to avoid traffic on the court in his effort to retrieve the ball.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

How can these two things both be true?

Fair question. I mean he just allows the ball to bounce by itself while he steps OOB.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Fair question. I mean he just allows the ball to bounce by itself while he steps OOB.

Then I would think he's not a dribbler. Is he?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Then I would think he's not a dribbler. Is he?

What ends a dribble?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What ends a dribble?

No one has said that the dribble has ended. It's just interrupted because, as we both agree, he stopped dribbling.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Fair question. I mean he just allows the ball to bounce by itself while he steps OOB.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And that's completely legal.

In the original post, yes.

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.

NFHS 9-3-1-Note: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

[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.

[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.