Legal dribble or not?
 

A1 receives a pass and releases the ball to start a dribble. The ball hits the top of his foot, never touching the floor, and bounces straight up. A1 then bats the ball to the floor.

Let's Play ...
 

Legal.

However? A1 receives a pass and releases the ball to start a dribble. The ball hits the top of his foot, never touching the floor, and bounces straight up. A1 then catches the ball with both hands, and starts a new dribble? What do you got? (Apologies to Bon Jovi)

Hoops Too?
 

I thought he owned part of an arena football team? :p

Hmmm. (NFHS) 4-15-2 states a ball may be batted in the air as long as it is allowed to hit the floor before being hit a 2nd time. Does this player bat the ball "in the air?" I don't think so, but is that the only time a player isn't allowed to bat it twice before it hits the floor? It's the only one I could find.

Tentative answer: legal

I think these are essentially the same question. Is it a legal dribble when the ball bounces off the body and not the floor?

Point, Counterpoint ...
 

They are. That's my point.

Is it a legal dribble when the ball bounces off the body and not the floor?

At least we know that it's not a fumble, the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player’s grasp.

Your move.

I would say illegal using 4.15.4.D plays a or c. I am thinking a coves it better though. Referring to billy's play

4.15.4 situation d ...
 

4.15.4 SITUATION D: While dribbling: (a) A1 bats the ball over the head of an
opponent, runs around the opponent, bats the ball to the floor and continues to
dribble; (b) the ball bounces away but A1 is able to get to it and continues to dribble;
(c) the ball hits A1’s foot and bounces away but A1 is able to overtake and
pick it up; or (d) A1 fumbles the ball in ending the dribble so that A1 must run to
recover it. RULING: Violation in (a), because the ball was touched twice by A1’s
hand(s) during a dribble, before it touched the floor. In (b), even though the dribble
was interrupted it has not ended and A1 may continue the dribble. In (c), the
dribble ended when A1 caught the ball; and it ended in (d) when it was fumbled.
Even though the dribble has ended in (c) and (d), A1 may recover the ball but may
not dribble again. (9-5)

Actually, if this is a violation, it's a violation regardless of whether he bats it again after it hits his foot. The violation would be for hitting the foot (the 2nd touch of a dribble before it hits the floor).

Neither case applies, IMO. a refers to a player who has batted the ball into the air; I don't think the plays in this thread were batted "in the air." c isn't even a violation in the case play.

I Never Took My Finger Off The Chesspiece ...
 

I retract my last move. Maybe it is a fumble. Did the player intentionally plan to "dribble" the ball off his foot. I can't read minds anymore, but I doubt it very much. So maybe it was accidentally and unintentionally fumbled? You can fumble and dribble, right?

Your move.

Going back to 4.15.4.D c shows that hitting the foot is legal.

Is hitting the foot the same as hitting the floor? In this case, I think it is. If not, the ball hasn't hit the floor, so the dribble hasn't started yet. Either way, no violation.

good point, I just re-read 4-15-2, and it qualifies the 2nd touch (illegal) as being with the hands. It wouldn't be a violation until the player bats it a 2nd time with his hands.

I agree it's not a violation, but I think it's because the ball is never batted "in the air."

Change the play, A1, during his dribble, bats the ball in the air over B1's head. He attempts to let it hit the floor legally before continuing the dribble, but his foot gets in the way. It hits his foot and bounces up, then he bats the ball to the floor and continues on his way.

I've got a violatin here, he batted it in the air and hit it again with his hand prior to the ball hitting the floor.

Deem ??? Where Did That Come From ???
 

I deem that in this play the ball was accidentally and unintentionally fumbled, that the "first dribble" never occurred because the ball never hit the floor, and that it's legal if the player decided to start a new dribble.

Check?

I don't really see how a player can release a dribble and have it hit his/her foot and come straight back up without wearing some weird shoes. If the ball is fumbled and comes back up off the foot, I do not see a problem. But if it is controlled, it would have to be a violation when the hand(s) touch the ball again before it hits the floor.

Can't Be Overiden, You Can Look It Up ...
 

Do you actually think that the player intentionally planned to "dribble" the ball off his foot? In this case, I don't think that you have to be a mind reader.

And anyway? I've already "deemed" this to be a fumble. Legally, there is no way in the world to override a deeming.

It was not a fumble. The ball was released to start a dribble. This was a given in the OP.

Checkmate

Please Delete Your Checkmate ...
 

Good point, but I've already deemed this. Too late.

Go look for pictures of chess pieces, then report back to us.


Next year.:D

You do not have to "mind read" if the player pushes the ball to the floor. Batting is where you have to use your mind-reading powers.

There Outta Be A Law ...
 

Wait a minute here? You are out of order trying to override my deeming, and I get double secret probation? Just doesn't seem fair? Who's the Forum parliamentarian?

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/44sZ2ZZ30_Q" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

By Definition, I Believe So ...
 

A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

Does the ball actually have to hit the floor for it to be a dribble?

Violation for touching the ball twice during the same dribble, as per the RULING of 4.15.4SitD(a)-"Violation because the ball was touched twice by A1's hand(s) during a dribble before it touched the floor."

Nope.

So if a player is holding the ball, tosses it from one hand to the other, then pushes it to the floor, is that a violation?

No, because the dribble doesn't start until he pushes it to the floor. This call hinges completely on whether A1 has to bat the ball "into the air" in order to be liable for this violation.

That was my point above.

And even if it is during the dribble, I see the ball hitting a foot the same as hitting the floor. What if it's an opponent's foot? It hits and comes straight back up to the dribbler's hand, (very unlikely I know, but no more unlikely than off his own foot) is this a violation?

I'm Out ...
 

Anything that I deemed, I now undeem.

I don't have another move because I'm stuck on the floor. Literally. The "pushes the ball to the floor" part of the definition is confusing me.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...8f40&index=ch1

Opponents foot, I'd consider that an interrupted dribble that touches an opponent. New dribble.

It's not an interrupted dribble because it didn't get away from the dribbler. It came straight back up. That is very unlikely, maybe even impossible, but it's still a given. The dribble didn't end, because the touch by the opponent caused no loss of control.

I'm considering this an interrupted dribble. The fact that a dribbler cannot possibly intend to dribble off his opponent's foot tells me that if it does, it got away from him. The fact that it, by a fluke of physics, bounced straight back to him does not change this, IMO.

I would agree if A1 had already batted the ball to floor at least once. But in the OP I see it no different than standing in place and tossing the ball to himself before dribbling.

I'm Back In The Game Baby ...
 

Which means that he can legally start a new dribble. Can I deem this now?

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...907a&index=ch1

Not if he picks his pivot foot up in the process.

I'm Out, Again ...
 

Scrapper1 told us in the OP that A1 released the ball to start a dribble. Are you calling Scrappy a liar? Is there any reason you wouldn't believe Scrappy?

Or are you a resident of JARlandia also?

Nope, but since the dribble never occurred I'm not ruling it a violation. The dribble was deferred. :)

Deal Me In ...
 

Excellent. I'm back in the game.

Nobody has posted the correct response yet:

"You're saying that hit his foot? Huh."

An instant classic.... :D

Though this is the place to overthink this kind of stuff, in a game situation...I got nuthun. It's such a one in a million kind of play that nobody would ever bother to write a rule about it. And absent a rule, or a really obvious application of an existing rule, it's legal.

It's Like An Alternative Universe ...
 

But this isn't real life, this is the Forum. Now, are you in this hand, or not? If so, ante up.

Billy --

There are 43 responses to the OP. You have 14 of them -- more than anyone else. Most are variations on the card game crap and add nothing to what is (at least to me) an interesting intellectual exercise.

Cut it out.

Please.

Oh -- on the OP: I'm ruling it legal.

Bob, there are 43 threads in which Billy has posted "excessive" jokes. In 14 of them, you've objected -- more than anyone else.

Cut it out.

Please.

For the record, Bob said what I was thinking.

I personally like the elegance of saying that since he hit his foot he didn't push the ball to the floor but to his foot and therefore didn't start a dribble.

Captain Kangaroo's Magic Words, Please, And Thank You ...
 

I also, from the get go, found it to be an interesting intellectual challange. In most of my posts I not only voiced my opinion, and my reasons for said opinion, but also chose to use "pretend" parlimentary procedure, a chess game, and later a poker game, analogy to challenge others to keep the debate going. Seldom did I just post an analogy.

Appreciate the "Please".

Regarding the OP being legal, how about my followup situation?

A1 receives a pass and releases the ball to start a dribble. The ball hits the top of his foot, never touching the floor, and bounces straight up. A1 then catches the ball with both hands, and starts a new dribble? What do you got?

If I really saw that, legal (assuming there was no other violation).

In practice, I think I'd think the ball had hit the floor.

Fumble, Dribble ...
 

Would you consider tihs a fumble followed by a dribble?

Fumble, Dribble ...
 

Would you consider this a fumble followed by a dribble?

After going through the dribble and travel rules, assuming that "to the floor" means the ball has to hit the floor to be a "dribble", the play is legal if the player doesnt travel before hand. If this would happen during a dribble, it would be a an illegal dribble in billy's play.


Though I think this play would only occur in bizzarro world because I still cannot imagine any situation to where a dribbler can do this without another player touching the ball.

I'll take a try...
 

Kicked ball? My reason being, anyone able to get the ball to come immediately back to him may be doing some "purposeful maneuvering" meaning intent. I don't know that I would call that, nobody else has suggested it.

Methinks you're assuming a little too much. By rule (4-15-3), the dribble started when the ball was pushed, thrown or batted to the floor. Iow, when the ball left the dribbler's hand(s).

Are you saying a player that:
1) it's legal to touch the ball twice before the ball hits the floor for the first time
on a dribble?
2) A player can travel during a dribble?

Interesting.

Explanation as to why it's legal? Scrappy said that the ball was released to start a dribble and the ball was then touched twice by the dribbler before the ball hit the floor. That double-touch was during the same dribble, wasn't it? The definition of a "dribble" says that you push the ball to the floor, not to a foot. What am I missing?

If we follow that this is the same as the case play, then it would have to be an illegal dribble any time a player begins a dribble and the ball hits off his foot-even if the ball goes to a defender.

Agree?

Why?

Um, no. Afaik, by rule touching any other body part except the hand(s) during any single dribble is completely irrelevant. It's a violation to touch the ball twice with either hand during any single dribble. But simultaneously touching the ball with both hands isn't a violation. Doing so merely ends the dribble.

The usual understanding of a single dribble, again afaik, is hand--->floor---->hand. And if you touch the ball twice with a hand at any time between the total hand---->floor sequence, it's a violation.

Well, I'm asking. If the violation is for touching a dribble twice before it hits the floor (which is what it appears to me JR is saying), then any time a player begins a dribble and dribbles it off a foot (or knee, gut, head, whatever), that would be touching a dribble twice.

If I'm misreading what Jurassic is arguing, then I need straightened out. Perhaps he's saying that the player catching the ball off his foot is the second touching?

Ah, I'm following you now. The violation occurs when the ball is touched again by the hand, not when the ball touches the foot. Thanks for the clarification.

That's my understanding of the rule. You'd only have a violation if you called the dribbler for deliberately playing the ball with the foot(aka a deliberate kicked ball). But's that's a different scenario than the OP and a different violation entirely.

Yep, I was just having a brain cramp around what you were saying, not the rule. I was thinking you were arguing the second touching was when it hit the foot, which made no sense (obviously) to me. We agree.

In practice, it would have to be abundantly obvious the ball didn't hit the floor as well as the foot for me to call a violation.

Before reading the case play, my understanding of the rule was that not only did the player have to hit the ball twice with his hands between bounces, but it had to happen after he batted the ball "in the air."

The reasoning in the case play, however, leads one to your conclusion.

In practice, though, I'm not sure there's any way I'd be able to see the ball didn't hit the floor.

Is that not just like a player tossing the ball from hand to hand....which is not a dribble at all. Perhaps a travel if the feet move, but not a dribble, either legal or illegal.

Nope, it can't be because that's a completely different scenario that has nothing to do with the discussion. In the OP, Scrappy stated that the player started a dribble. That makes it a dribble. Therefore all answers to the OP should be predicated on the events ocurring after the start of the dribble. And by rule you can't travel during a dribble either, which I'm sure you well know.

By the OP according to Scrappy, we have a dribble that was touched twice before it hit the floor. The question that I'm pretty sure Scrappy is asking is whether that's legal or not if the ball touched the foot between the two touches. Maybe Scrappy can confirm that if he makes an appearance later.

The same answer should apply if this play happens after a player has made several dribbles. If a dribbler pushes the ball down, bounces it off his shoe straight up without it touching the floor and then pushes it back down again to the floor, would that be a legal dribble by rule? Same premise, same rules.

But in a past thread you have said one cannot call an illegal dribble violation until the ball returns from the floor and is touched a second time with the hand.
A second touch with the hand is not a part of the definition of a dribble. Pushing the ball to the floor is a part of the definition. This ball never touched the floor.

So?:confused:

Hmmm. Apparently, there's a second crux to this question. The rule clarifies that it's illegal "during a dribble." We all know the dribble starts when it's pushed to the floor, but if it never hits the floor, was it really the start of the dribble?

By definition, no, unless we consider the ball hitting a foot on the floor to be the same as the ball hitting the floor. I think, in reality, it would be very difficult to say, seeing this ball hit a foot and pop straight back up, that it did not also touch the floor.

Confused is a good description.

1)The past thread had dick-all to do with this one. Iirc it had something like a dribble being ended with a simultaneous two-hand touch followed by the dribbler pushing the ball to the floor again. That isn't a violation unless/until/if the dribbler touches the ball first again. Maybe you can find the old thread and check. Me? All i care about is getting answers to this thread. Care to participate?

2) Whatinthehell has "a second touch with the hand is not part of the definition of a dribble" got to do with anything? And the next 2 sentences are points that I made. What is your point?

Hmmmm. Do you really think Scrappy lied to you in the OP when he said that A1 released the ball to start a dribble? That's a given!

Why can't people just take Scrappy's question at face value instead of bringing in things that have got nothin to do with what he's asking? Scrappy said the dribble started. That's good enough for me. What constitutes the start of a dribble is a completely different conversation that has nothing to do with this thread.

Forget about the start of the dribble. Say A1 has dribbled 7 times. On his eighth dribble, he pushes the ball down, the ball hits his foot without touching the floor and goes straight back up, and then A1 pushes the ball to the floor again. Is that a violation, by rule, for touching the ball twice during the same dribble?

Unless I'm confused, that's what Scrappy's been asking from the git-go.

My point is, definition of a dribble contains "pushed to the floor" and this ball didn't touch the floor, so it wasn't a dribble.

If scrappy is offended by my question, he'll say so. Here's the OP:

Note, it never touches the floor. Sure, he released it to start the dribble, but when the ball never touches the floor, was it a dribble? I think it is relevant to the question.

Your altered situation removes one of my two points, to be sure. Now, the only question is whether a player has to bat the ball into the air in order for it to be a violation.

Sigh....

Then whatinthehell was it?

In the OP, Scrappy said it was a dribble. Now You're saying it isn't a dribble. Well, sorry. I knew Scrapper1. You sir, are no Scrapper1. I'll think I'll go with Scrappy.

Good...Lord.

That's all I can say.

I can't put the question any clearer guys.

Would someone answer this question?

Scrappy saying it was a dribble doesn't make it a dribble if it doesn't fit the definition of a dribble. I could say A1 started a dribble by tossing the ball from one hand to another but that doesn't mean it really was a dribble.

The question remains: Did A1 start a dribble when he pushed the ball to his foot? Why would this be any different than tossing the ball from one hand to another?

That depends on whether you think A1 started a dribble in the OP. If you do, no violation. If you don't, violation. I don't see any basis for considering the foot equivalent to the floor in the rules (in fact quite the opposite). The ball touching a foot should not be considered to have touched the floor.

In the OP, A1 has not started a dribble (and, no Scrappy didn't lie about it) and in your scenario A1 has touched the ball twice with his hands without letting it touch the floor.

That's a bit silly, IMO. If the ball bounces on a gum wrapper it's not a dribble, because it didn't touch the floor?

Everybody completely forget about the damn OP and whether a dribble had started or not. If y'all don't think a dribble was started even though Scrappy1 said it did, who I am to tell you anything different?

In the situation above, is this a violation or no? And if not, why not?

For the record, I say it is because the ball was touched twice during a dribble.

No violation. Dribbling off your own foot generally has its own natural punishment.

Is there a limit as to how many times you can dribble off your foot without the ball touching the floor? Can you go from one end to the other doing that? Or maybe continually off your knee like a soccer player as long as the knee isn't moving when the ball hits?

So have I started a dribble if I push the ball down but catch with the other hand before it hits the floor? It's not being silly to note that the floor is different than a foot. Bringing a gum wrapper into the discussion is a bit silly.


JR, just because Scrappy said a dribble started doesn't mean a dribble started. It has to start by rule not by Scrappy's (or your) fiat. (And for that matter Scrappy didn't say a dribble started he said A1 released the ball to start a dribble (intention) not A1 started a dribble (fact, which inherently involves the ball actually making it to the floor)).

I see none prescribed by the rules.

I think doing it on purpose would be a kicking violation, sort of like a player letting the ball hit his foot and roll up his leg to gain control.


The question is, does a violation of 4-15-2 require the ball to be batted "in the air," as the rule states? Or, is it a violation to touch the ball twice with the hands "during a dribble," meaning any dribble, per case play 4.15.4D? Those three words in the case play seem to add a bit to the rule.

Just to complicate matters more:
A1 dribbling down the court, bats the ball (legally) over B1's head. Instead of allowing it to bounce, however, he catches it.

Violation?

I think anytime the ball is touched while not on the floor it is being batted in the air. "In the air" is the location of the ball, not the direction given by the bat.

I don't think that's what is meant by 4-15-2, otherwise it would be a completely redundant rule. Why would they need to say a player can "bat it in the air," unless they have trajectory in mind?

I thought I did that a few pages ago. In fact, I answered the question before it was asked. :cool:

Nobody There To Hear It ???
 

Kind of like the tree falling in the forest question. Does it make a sound?

It should be mentioned (shouldn't it?) that this one where the case book adds totally another dimension to the rule. The illegal dribble violation in the rule book is for only ending a dribble and starting another. 4.15.4 D as noted above states it is a violation for the ball being touched twice by A1's hand(s) during a dribble. Yet touching it twice does not end the dribble. So why is this a violation? This being said, I have always called/seen it called for two touches, regardless of the direction. In other words, a bat over the head (upward) is not necessary. What I see most often is the ball slapped horizontally from one hand to the other, then pushed to the floor.

The violation is stated in 4-15-2, "a player may bat the ball into the air" provided he does not touch it twice with his hands before it hits the floor. This is the only place I know of where the prohibition is spelled out.

Well.........yeah, I suppose so, but not exactly spelled out. It still does not say that the second touch ends the dribble, and the only violation in 9-5 is starting a second dribble after the first one has ended.

I see what you're getting at now. You're right, the violation isn't spelled out in the section on violations. And really, there's no penalty listed in 4-15-2. To me, the case play makes it clear what play 4-15-2 is referring to, so I'd be inclined not to call it a violation unless the ball was batted into the air first.

Got it. You're both saying it's legal for a player during the dribble to push the ball down to the floor and then reach down with the other hand and push the ball down again before it touched the floor from the first push. Doing so is perfectly legal because the ball was never batted into the air first.

Got it.

Well, you and JAR are certainly entitled to have your own opinions. And that's all I'm going to say about that. You already know my opinion.

I'm done.

It's not my opinion, it's how I read the rule. Although, I admit the wording in case play 4.15.4D confuses me. This case play is the only place where this is mentioned, there's no rule that correspondingly tells you it's a violation.

Without the case play, I wouldn't even question my reading of the rule. The only rule referenced is 9.5, which says nothing about this play; unless it somewhere states that touching the ball twice between bounces ends the dribble. Does it?

During the dribble is the key phrase. If a player is holding the ball, then pushes it toward the floor, he may do anything he wants before it hits the floor, so long as he has not moved his pivot foot.

He'll be back. He likes us.:D

It has everything to do with the conversation. If it wasn't really a dribble at all, then the rules about what can occur during a dribble are not relevant.

Think of the definition of a pass for a moment. It is defined as a pass only if it goes to (touches) another player. If the two rules have any consistency in the meanings of words, it wouldn't be a dribble unless it touched the floor. That said, I think the spirit of the rule would lead to it being a dribble when it goes off the foot after being deliberately released in that direction in the form of a dribble.

Well, I'd say that is traveling....based on the concept posed in the case play covering a player tossing the ball from hand to hand without moving their pivot foot. The basis behind the traveling rule is that a player may not move with the ball unless they're dribbling.

I disagree. The word is actually "into". Batted into the air is a direction.

You need to look back at the history of the game to know where this rule came from. At some time, long ago, the rules stated that a player couldn't run while holding the ball. There were no other restrictions. As a result, players would run while repeatedly tapping the ball into the air without letting it hit the floor. Still not happy with the balance of offense/defense, the rules were then revised to say that they could tap the ball into the air but couldn't touch it a second time before it hit the floor.

Once you know that history, it should become apparent that "into the air" is a direction.

All that said, a dribble is defined as pushing/batting the ball "to the floor". If it doesn't go to the floor, it is either not a dribble or an illegal dribble.

So It Has To Be True, Right ???
 

This is true. I know it's true because I saw it on the History Channel, right after Pawn Stars.