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

[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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're reading way too much into this rule.

I maintain I'm reading less into it than the other side.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I maintain I'm reading less into it than the other side.

Naw, you're adding something to the rule that isn't in it anywhere...and what you're adding is intent. We're at the "repeating the same thing over and over" stage though. Time to let 'er go.

[bigdog5142]

I had this play the other night in an 8th grade game. Rebounder gets the ball and begins his dribble parallel to the endline. His momentum is going to carry him out of bounds, so he let's the ball continue to bounce in bounds. He gets a foot back in bounds and continues the dribble with one hand, did not catch the ball. Picked up his dribble on a bounce. I had no violation. He did not have control of the ball while OOB. Established his inbounds position with one foot and continued dribble, so no double dribble, either.

Separate question...if the player had caught the ball in the above situation and then continued his dribble, would you have double dribble? I would have called it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bigdog5142

I had this play the other night in an 8th grade game. Rebounder gets the ball and begins his dribble parallel to the endline. His momentum is going to carry him out of bounds, so he let's the ball continue to bounce in bounds. He gets a foot back in bounds and continues the dribble with one hand, did not catch the ball. Picked up his dribble on a bounce. I had no violation. He did not have control of the ball while OOB. Established his inbounds position with one foot and continued dribble, so no double dribble, either.

Separate question...if the player had caught the ball in the above situation and then continued his dribble, would you have double dribble? I would have called it.

Absolutely would have been. Great no-call.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bigdog5142

I had this play the other night in an 8th grade game. Rebounder gets the ball and begins his dribble parallel to the endline. His momentum is going to carry him out of bounds, so he let's the ball continue to bounce in bounds. He gets a foot back in bounds and continues the dribble with one hand, did not catch the ball. Picked up his dribble on a bounce. I had no violation. He did not have control of the ball while OOB. Established his inbounds position with one foot and continued dribble, so no double dribble, either.

Separate question...if the player had caught the ball in the above situation and then continued his dribble, would you have double dribble? I would have called it.

Regardless of whether you consider it an interrupted dribble or not, it ends when A1 catches the ball. If A1 starts another dribble, it will be an illegal dribble.