We agree on that, but here's the difference between your sitch and Billy's:

Yours: Rebound (no control)- tip by A-1 (still no control) - ball goes into A's backcourt, A-2 holds the ball (player control) = legal, because there was no team control in the frontcourt after the shot.

Billy's: A-1 holds the ball (player control) - A-1 fumbles - A-1 bats the ball intentionally on the floor - A-1 picks up the ball (player control) = travelling.

More succinctly, the fact that Billy's sitch started with control, and yours did not, is the key difference. Again, I see intentionally moving the ball on the floor the same as moving the ball in the air, provided there was player control on both ends.

Probably so. Suit yourself, sir. You wouldn't have to repeat yourself, anyway, if you aimed for understanding.

I've stated before, my rule of thumb on a dribble is whether the "dribbler" is able to contact the ball between bounces. If it bounces more than once between touches, it's likely not a dribble.

This obviously can't apply to a rolled ball. It does seem pretty clear, though, that by "dribble" the rules mean a bouncing ball under the control of a player. Rolling it doesn't count, and playing keep-away doesn't seem to be enough of an unintented advantage to me to justify changing the rules.

Player control is the only relevant issue here, and that was lost in Billy's play as well, not to be regained until he picks it up.

Let's change it slightly again. A1 fumbles the ball (already used his dribble) in the air. Runs to get it and bats it in the air. He runs to get it, and bats it again (outjumps a defender) before taking two more steps to retrieve the ball.

Call?

Play on in the OP and play on in the new sitch.

It looks like that's the crux of our difference. I say team control is relevant, because if team control were lost (i.e. a try for goal), then a travel for recovering the ball would indeed be impossible. However, since team control remained throughout (i.e. the ball travelling through the air, not a shot), then travelling is still possible, IMO.

Good question. Assuming he's he holding the ball prior to the fumble, it would depend upon the bats. If he's batting to chase down the ball in any direction, then I'd let it go. If he's clearly intentionally trying to move the ball to a certain spot, then I'd equate that to the ball being thrown in the air and caught by the same player, so I'd have a travel.

I suppose the issue is whether you think a fumble gives a player carte blanche to move the ball as he sees fit. I don't think so.

You can't debate the merits of the situation so you go and pull completely unrelated stuff out of the past...Intelligent, very intelligent. Keep showing your true colors.

You've yet to tell me why the two case plays I've referenced where a player NOT holding the ball is called for traveling despite your insistence that it can't be. You're the one off-base and ignoring the precedent that is in black and white in the rule/case book that considers a player to be holding the ball when they deliberately do something to circumvent the travel rule.

In the thread you're pulling that stuff from, the official in question wasn't anywhere close and they weren't unusual situations....he just totally messed up. No one has disputed that....the only issue was the behavior of the coach....which we (including me) all agree was not acceptable and deserved a T. My comments that the official deserved the grief he got also stand....he showed a complete lack of basic rules knowledge and made stuff up with no basis on anything. It wasn't like he was taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Regardless of your desire to back officials blindly, it is possible for both of them to be wrong.

I say you have no rules basis for this distinction. Player control is required to travel, and batting the ball very specifically does not constitute player control.

No, the issue is whether you can add stuff to the rules to distinguish between different plays that really, in the end, use the same rules. There is no rule-based distinction between the rebound-bat and the fumble-bat plays.

Again, a controlled bat does not equal player control no matter how much you want it to.

Very well, then.

We've established that holding a ball, throwing it (not a try), running several steps, and catching it is travelling.

Let's say A-1 holds the ball, tosses it in the air, BATS IT, runs several steps, and catches it. Is this legal?

Nope. That's an illegal dribble that has recently been unceremoniously changed to a travel. The key to the play in the OP is the fact that the player traveled and thus ended player control.

Then, it's a travel. What it used to be is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's a violation because it's a dribble that fails to hit the floor between consecutive touches by the hands of the player in control.

But we're diverging from the point. The point is, without the fumble, the same rules don't apply.

Let's Be Accurate ...
 

For accuracy's sake, I blew the whistle before A1 picked up the ball. I blew it after the third tap and roll (actually after the second intentional tap and roll, I judged the first tap and roll to be a fumble).

He'd already fumbled at this point, right? You can't fumble a ball you don't control.

Swell. I'm basing my entire point on the whistling the play on the pick up, not the bats.

Indeed the bats are not control, so I have nothing until the ball is picked up on this play.