What's The Correct Call ???
 

A1 dribbles, comes to a stop, and intentionally, and deliberately, ends his dribble. He then proceeds to fumble the ball, which drops to the floor. A1 tries to pick up the fumbled ball, but in his haste he ends up just pushing it and the ball rolls across the floor for a distance of about a foot. Now A1 realizes that two defenders are close enough to him to attempt to pick up the fumbled ball off the floor, so he, in my opinion, intentionally, and deliberately pushes the ball to roll it a few feet away from one defender, and then, again in my opinion, intentionally, and deliberately, pushes the ball again to roll it a few feet away from the second defender. At this point, before he picks it up, I figure that the statute of limitations has run out on the "can always pick up a fumble rule", so I blow my whistle, and call a travel. Later, during a timeout, I discuss this with my partner and she believes that this should have been an illegal dribble.

I know that this play has got to be illegal, just not sure why? Help.

I don't see what makes this play illegal. There was no second dribble (rolling the ball is not a dribble, and you can't push or a bat a ball to the floor if it's already on the floor); and he's not holding the ball, so it's not a travel. I vote play on.

I'm not sure there's a rule against it, but I'm also not sure this play fits within the spirit and intent. Isn't this a classic example of an advantage not intended by the rules?

It maybe something or it maybe nothing. But it damn sure ain't traveling.

Traveling (running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while HOLDING the ball.

There are (as of now) two exceptions to this.

Throwing the ball in the air, moving your pivot foot beyond the limits, and then catching said ball is a travel.

Setting the ball on the floor, getting up from a sitting position, and picking the ball back up is a travel.

Billy's play is a sort of combination of the two that's not really addressed it seems. Since it's not addressed, is it legal?

What if A1 is trapped, already having used his dribble. He sets the ball on the floor and rolls it through B1's legs. Then he runs around the trap and picks up the ball off the roll.

Anything?

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.

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?????

+1

Once you rule it a fumble, there's no rules governing subsequent actions afaik except the kick/punch/backcourt/OOB ones until player control is established again. You can't call something just because you personally feel it isn't fair.

We all know said case play was always an illegal dribble until some idiot at the Fed changed it. The case play is not supported by rule.

That's a specific ruling that covers that one play, as the player is circumventing the rule.

Nope, the rule is quite clear. BillyMac's play is not traveling.

The Fairness Doctrine ...
 

Agree. There are a few rules that I personally don't think are fair and yet I have to enforce them.

This play just seemed illegal. I'm not talking about a play (traveling) that an official sees as being "odd" and calls it illegal just because it looks "oddly" illegal.

I really thought (probably incorrectly) that this kid was gaining an advantage not intended by rule. He was intentionally, and deliberately, controlling his tapping motion to roll the ball away from the two defenders. I knew right away that my traveling call was incorrect. I still thought (past tense) that it the play must have been, or should have been, illegal. Now, I'm not so sure.

I would allow a player, while catching a pass, to bobble the ball with both hands while moving his pivot feet. I'm just not sure that I would allow said player to do that for eighty feet if I thought that he was "controlling' the bobble. Same thing for a rolled ball. The first roll was definitely unintentional and legal. The second roll, with defenders nearby, was questionable in my mind. It was the third roll that made me decide it was illegal, and sound my whistle.

If a player on a rebound tapped the ball away from opposing rebounders once or several times without establishing player control, do you think that should be illegal also as per the same logic of intentionally and deliberately keeping the ball away from his opponents? Is that unfair also?

That's a fairly common play btw.

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".

Great point. Now I'm not so sure.

If the play isn't illegal by rule, it's legal. The official's feelings on the subject mean nothing.

Personally, the next time I use rule 2-3 or suggest on a discussion board that 2-3 should be used will be the very first time.

By George, He's Got it ...
 

It certainly is. Would you let this player do that for eighty-four feet?

You did bring up a key word that I believe that I didn't use in my original post. Player control. A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Even though the player was only controlling the ball with one hand as it rolled across the floor, could I have ruled that player control exsited here, and that the player moved illegally while controlling the ball, and thus, had traveled?