What's The Correct Call ???

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Snaq, are you saying this would be a legal play?

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.

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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.