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

[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 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 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

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.