What's The Correct Call ???

[jearef]

Seems to me that this is another one of those "intent and purpose" situations. If we can accept that the rules intend there are only two ways for a player in control to advance the basketball (dribble it or pass it), then I agree this should be a violation. Problem is, this doesn't fit the definition of a player in control either, since he is neither holding nor dribbling a live ball inbounds.

I'm calling this a violation, and if I'm put to the test, I'm going to cite Rule 2-3.

Very interesting situation.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jearef

I'm calling this a violation, and if I'm put to the test, I'm going to cite Rule 2-3.

Rule 2-3 is there for situations that are not covered by the rules. So you're going to call a violation that you acknowledge is not a violation by rule?????

[jearef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Rule 2-3 is there for situations that are not covered by the rules. So you're going to call a violation that you acknowledge is not a violation by rule?????

If we accept that logic, then Rule 2-3 would never be used. I believe 2-3 is an acknowledgment by the rules gurus that there are things they may not have anticipated in drafting and amending the rules, which things permit a player to gain an advantage that he shouldn't be getting.

I acknowledge that the situation presented does not appear to be specifically covered by any rule. It simply seems to me, as originally suggested by Billy, that in this situation the player is gaining an advantage that is not intended by the rules. I agree with Jurassic when he says that once we rule this a fumble, no further inquiry is necessary. If this is a fumble, I have nothing. However, a fumble is the "accidental" loss of player control. In reading the original post, I was of the opinion that Billy had determined that the player was "in control".

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Rule 2-3 is there for situations that are not covered by the rules. So you're going to call a violation that you acknowledge is not a violation by rule?????

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.

+1

To put the point differently: rule 2-3 concerns situations not covered by the rules. All violations are defined by the rules, so one would never have occasion to call a violation using 2-3.

[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.