What's The Correct Call ???

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

1) That sitch is about TEAM control, not player control. Team control has to be established in the front court for a backcourt violation to exist.

2)A fumble does not wipe the slate clean. Consider fumble-dribble-fumble vs. dribble-fumble-dribble. The former is legal; the latter is not --assuming there's a ball hold before the second dribble -- because you still have two dribbles.

3) The fumble was fine, until the player started directing the ball to another spot. Once he gained control a second time, I have a travel.

1) Team control has got dick-all to do with traveling. Never has, never will. The definition of traveling in rule 4-44 as already cited umpteen times says that you can't travel unless you're holding the ball. And holding the ball is player control as per rule 4-12-1. Team control is completely irrelevant when it comes to traveling. And we sureashell haven't been discussing backcourt violations.

2) How about dribble-fumble-grab ball? You do realize that's what you insist on saying has to be traveling, don't you? On second thought, no, you obviously don't realize that.

3) Did you even bother to read case book play 4.15COMMENT? The one that said that there's NO player control during a batt? You can't call a travel by rule on this play when the player regains player control unless the player actually travels AFTER regaining player control.


Bainsey, quite simply you have a very weak understanding of some very basic basketball rules. It's truly unfortunate that you a have a local IAABO board interpreter that shares that problem and can't help you out.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I wouldn't. Even if the rules do not expressly prohibit it, it is an advantage not intended by the rules.

We have at least a few case plays that establish that when a player who is holding the ball deliberately releases the ball such that it is not a dribble, a try, or a pass, they are effectively considered to have been holding the ball the entire time as far as the traveling rules are concerned when they again pick up the ball.

Even if the rules specifically state that you can't travel unless you're actually holding the ball, you'd still call traveling because you think it's an unfair advantage.

Got it.

And good luck with that philosophy. You're gonna need it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Even if the rules specifically state that you can't travel unless you're actually holding the ball, you'd still call traveling because you think it's an unfair advantage.

Got it.

And good luck with that philosophy. You're gonna need it.

Here's the play Camron was ruling on.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me change it slightly, Billy.

A1 has the ball, already having used his dribble. He's being trapped by B1 and B2 in the BC. He reaches down, touching the ball to the floor, and rolls it between B1's legs towards the division line. He then runs around the defenders before the realize what happened (they though they had him trapped) and retrieves the rolling ball before passing to an open teammate.

You're ruling this legal?

[jearef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Absolutely 100% not true. Rule 2-3 may be used for other situations that arise during a game. But it should NOT be used to penalize actions which are not listed as illegal. (I'm including actions that fall under the catch-all "including, but not limited to. . .", even if they aren't specifically listed.) In fact, I was looking through old threads a while ago and found a discussion where I think 2-3 might legitimately apply. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the thread was now. But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.

Gosh, I've been wrong before, but "absolutely, 100%" wrong?

The point I was trying to make (and perhaps not doing a very good job of making) was this: Rule 2-3 very clearly provides that it is intended to allow us to deal with things that are not "specifically covered" by the rules. Your argument, as I understood it, is that I shouldn't use 2-3 in this circumstance, because it isn't covered in the rules. I believe that is exactly the situation where 2-3 should be, and was intended to be used.

Some would argue that violations are covered by the rules, and since this action isn't covered as a violation, it has to be legal and thus 2-3 isn't appropriate. I think that statement is way too broad. If we accept as correct the argument that says "if you can't explain why it's illegal, then it has to be legal", then 2-3 has no purpose, or at least none that I can see. If, on the other hand, we accept that the rules makers envisioned certain situations would arise which, although not specifically covered by the rules, would allow a player to gain an unfair advantage, then 2-3 becomes a useful tool.

I agree that the sitch is not traveling as the rule is written; nor is it double dribble as the rule is written. It just seems to me that the player here was attempting to gain an advantage not intended by the rules. I recognize that most here disagree, and I respect their opinions. You gotta love any play situation that gets us into the real nitty-gritty of the rules.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Exactly. The only differences between this and the "sets the ball down" play are that the ball rolls (and who's to say it isn't rolling slightly in the book play) and we're talking pivot foot restrictions rather than getting up.

The difference between my play and Billy's play is that Billy's player loses control and fumbles. If a player lying on the floor fumbles it, he can then get up and retrieve it.

Doesn't this all get easier if we consider a bat along the floor the same as a bat to the floor? After all, both end up with the ball touching the floor.

I understand the thought process of considering "to the floor" as being exclusive of already on the floor but I think if you consider it inclusive it solves several of these plays that clearly aren't intended to be legal but seem to fall through the loophole between traveling and illegal dribbles.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Doesn't this all get easier if we consider a bat along the floor the same as a bat to the floor? After all, both end up with the ball touching the floor.

I understand the thought process of considering "to the floor" as being exclusive of already on the floor but I think if you consider it inclusive it solves several of these plays that clearly aren't intended to be legal but seem to fall through the loophole between traveling and illegal dribbles.

I think that it's a helluva lot easier if you just consider a bat as being a bat without all the extraneous and uneccessary thinking attached. Where a bat ends up is totally irrelevent, rules-wise. Case book play 4.15COMMENT solves these plays when it states that (a) a player is not dribbling during a bat, and (b) a player is not in control during a bat. That's all the info you need to rule on the plays.

Use the rules we have, not what you wish the rules should be.

[jearef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that it's a helluva lot easier if you just consider a bat as being a bat without all the extraneous and uneccessary thinking attached. Where a bat ends up is totally irrelevent, rules-wise. Case book play 4.15COMMENT solves these plays when it states that (a) a player is not dribbling during a bat, and (b) a player is not in control during a bat. That's all the info you need to rule on the plays.

Use the rules we have, not what you wish the rules should be.

Perhaps we have achieved the dreaded "paralysis by (over) analysis"?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that it's a helluva lot easier if you just consider a bat as being a bat without all the extraneous and uneccessary thinking attached. Where a bat ends up is totally irrelevent, rules-wise. Case book play 4.15COMMENT solves these plays when it states that (a) a player is not dribbling during a bat, and (b) a player is not in control during a bat. That's all the info you need to rule on the plays.

Use the rules we have, not what you wish the rules should be.

You're not using the rules we have. The comment says "when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it." We aren't talking about a rebound or a pass.

And players do bat the ball during a dribble. In fact the definition of a dribble is batting the ball to the floor (4-15-1). So I ask again, why are we excluding batting along the floor from batting to the floor?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Even if the rules specifically state that you can't travel unless you're actually holding the ball, you'd still call traveling because you think it's an unfair advantage.

Got it.

And good luck with that philosophy. You're gonna need it.

You bet I am.

As I said, we have at least TWO case plays that result in traveling when a player is not holding the ball. One is 4.44.5B as cited above and the other is case play (don't have my books with me) where a player tosses the ball from hand to hand (not holding the ball) and the ruling is that it is not a travel as long as the pivot foot doesn't move in the process (implying that it is a travel if the pivot foot does move).

These two cases clearly establish the principle that is desired by the NFHS. Most people should be able to extrapolate a few existing case plays to what happens on the floor without needing a case play for every possible variation. It is called understanding the spirit and intent of the rule and intelligently applying the rules, not blindly following the letter of the rule.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Bainsey, quite simply you have a very weak understanding of some very basic basketball rules. It's truly unfortunate that you a have a local IAABO board interpreter that shares that problem and can't help you out.

First of all, leave my interpreter out of this. I'm engaging in this rules dicussion; he is not. If we disagree, then fine. Let's back up our statements with facts, not attacks.

Now, my replies...

Team control is completely irrelevant when it comes to traveling. And we sureashell haven't been discussing backcourt violations.

That was Snaq's point, not mine. He was trying to inject the concept of player control into his backcourt example, and I was pointing out that's about team control, not player control. So, while you're correct that team control has nothing to do with travelling, that's not something I ever said.

How about dribble-fumble-grab ball? You do realize that's what you insist on saying has to be traveling, don't you?

You're 0-for-2, sir. I clearly stated the fumble "does not wipe the slate clean." So, dribble-fumble-grab ball = dribble-grab ball = legal.

Did you even bother to read case book play 4.15COMMENT? The one that said that there's NO player control during a batt? [sic]

Make that 0-for-3. I never said there was travelling during a bat, nor is this relevent to my point.

The very weak understanding is not my rules knowledge, sir, but rather your understanding of my point, as evident above. Or, you're ready to jump on me for disagreements we've had before, and aren't all that concerned about considering my point.

Re-read my point from earlier, and if you don't understand it, ask for clarity. Be careful what motivates you.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You're not using the rules we have. The comment says "when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it." We aren't talking about a rebound or a pass.

And players do bat the ball during a dribble. In fact the definition of a dribble is batting the ball to the floor (4-15-1). So I ask again, why are we excluding batting along the floor from batting to the floor?

You have to determine if a bat to the floor is a dribble or not for lots of reasons. IOW, it's not always a dribble. It seems pretty clear that batting the ball "away" from an opponent isn't dribbling, regardless of whether the ball is bouncing or rolling, and regardless of how precisely the player is able to direct the ball.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is called understanding the spirit and intent of the rule and intelligently applying the rules, not blindly following the letter of the rule.

Soooooo.....

You would never agree with someone that said:
1) "The ref was writing his own rules on this one and deserved to be called on it."
2) "In the end I can only hope that OFC1 goes home and opens his rulebook so he doesn't invite that kind of trouble again by BS'ing his way through situations."
3) "OFC1 invited that grief upon himself being so off-base on so many rules."

Got it. Personally you'd always back up an official that thought they understood the spirit and intent of a rule and were intelligently applying the rule, and not just blindly following the letter of the rule. I'm sure that official will be just so happy to hear of your support.

Now I know exactly where you're coming from.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That was Snaq's point, not mine. He was trying to inject the concept of player control into his backcourt example, and I was pointing out that's about team control, not player control. So, while you're correct that team control has nothing to do with travelling, that's not something I ever said.

And my point was that in the play I described (rebound bat), it is all about player control because player control is required to establish team control. The point was a controlled bat does not equal player control, and that's why team control isn't an issue yet on that rebound. Since a controlled bat doesn't establish player control, the guy in this case play never re-establishes player control after the initial fumble; therefore he cannot travel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The very weak understanding is not my rules knowledge, sir, but rather your understanding of my point, as evident above.

I'm done, bainsey. I'm tired of repeating myself and it's obviously a waste of both our times.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You have to determine if a bat to the floor is a dribble or not for lots of reasons. IOW, it's not always a dribble. It seems pretty clear that batting the ball "away" from an opponent isn't dribbling, regardless of whether the ball is bouncing or rolling, and regardless of how precisely the player is able to direct the ball.

True, but isn't the primary way we determine if it was a dribble is if the batter (for the lack of a better term) is the next person to touch the ball? I don't know that I agree that batting the ball away from the opponent always means it's not a dribble. It's not like a normal dribble is always batting the ball towards the opponent.

I'm not sold on the idea I putting out here. I just don't think it's been examined enough.