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

[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.

[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.