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?

You could have ruled it, but your ruling would not be supported by rule. JMO

Can you cite a rule that says he can't? No.

Can you cite a rule that says you can? No.

You can turn this into a 10 page thread but the answer is still, "It's not a violation by rule."

The Number One Answer ...
 

How about the results of a poll?

Pardon My French ...
 

A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

Traveling is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits
while holding the ball.

Once I make a judgment that the player is in control of the ball, then I've got rule support. N'est-ce pas?

Hey guys. I'm not saying that I made the right call (traveling), or that I made the right decision that this was somehow illegal. I'm not trying to get out of this by pushing the envelope. I knew coming into this that I was on shaky ground.

It's just that I can't see allowing a player to tap a rebound in the air like a volleyball for eighty-four feet, or bobble a ball after catching a pass for eighty-four feet, or play roller hockey with a ball for eighty-four feet, and have it be legal? It just doesn't make any sense to me? Does it make sense to the NFHS? That's my question. Do you think that they consider any of these three actions legal?

In control is defined by rule. The player in question was neither holding nor dribbling, thus not in control.

I don't think they have given great consideration to these actions one way or another, because they never happen.

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.

Player Control, Team Control, Backcourt ???
 

We've debated whether, or not, an offensive player who "taps" a rebound to a teammate in his backcourt has player control. Why not my situation? Can a player who is intentionally, and deliberately, rolling the ball on the court, to gain an advantage, be considered to be "holding" the ball, and thus have player control?

In a word,


NO.

Realistically, I think this might be a good question if it was something that happened more than once in a career. The fact is, if a player rolls the ball on the floor, it's not gonna gain him an advantage, because somebody else is gonna pick it up.

Advantage Not Intended By A Rule ...
 

I want you to get the facts straight. The first time he rolled, after the fumble, it he didn't gain an advantage, and actually put himself at a disadvantage (as you state). The second, and third, time he rolled the ball he intentionally, and deliberately, tapped the ball so that it rolled away from the two defenders. That, in my opinion, is certainly an advantage, however, the question is, is this an advantage that is not intended by a rule?

+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.

Okay, reviewing the situation, here's my opinion. In your play, A1 fumbled the ball. It is now a loose ball on the floor. If B1 reaches the ball first and pushes it away from A1, this is not in any way illegal, nor is it a dribble. If B1 subsequently picks up the ball, he would be free to dribble. A1 should have an equal opportunity to recover the ball by pushing it away from the defense. He just would not have a dribble after he recovered the ball.

Player control is defined as holding or dribbling the ball. The usual criteria for judging player control is whether the ball came to rest in/on a player's hands(s). And that's always a judgment call.

By rule, there is no player control during a fumble/muff. Soooooo....during a fumble/muff we should be looking for 4 things:
1) a foul because of contact giving one player an illegal advantage
2) player control being established
3) somebody with OOB status touching the ball
4) the offensive team touching the ball first in the backcourt if the fumble/muff went frontcourt to backcourt after having beein in team control in the frontcourt and an offensive player touched it last in the frontcourt.

If a foul occurs, call it. If player control is established, go to the appropriate rule for that situation i.e. traveling, illegal second dribble, etc. If the ball goes OOB or a backcourt violation occurs, call those also.

Other than that, quit thinking so damn much! :D

KISS!

Too Bad, They Were Happy Thoughts ...
 

Maybe I should tell you what I really think of you? Wait a minute? You suggested that I quite thinking so damn much. So I can't tell you. Nevermind.

(Reminds me of the old joke about the coach who asks the official if he can be charged with a technical foul for just thinking something.)

The Crux Of The Matter ...
 

Is tapping the ball along the floor in a controlled manner the same as having player control?

Would you call a timeout if one was asked? I'm not and therefore no player control.

Bingo ...
 

Pick a prize from the top shelf.

I've actually been waiting for someone to bring up that question. It's a great question, one that has been used before on the Forum, I believe, most recently, regarding an offensive player tapping a rebound to a teammate in the backcourt.

I find it odd that the NFHS would leave us with a revolving door type definition. If the official would grant a time out under such and such circumstance, then the player has player control. Also in order to grant a live ball timeout, a player on the team in control must have player control. Maybe a definition of "holding a ball" would be helpful?

cat_chasing_tail ÔÚÏß¹Û¿´ - ¿á6ÊÓƵ

Is tapping a rebound in a controlled manner to a teammate or to yourself considered the same as having player control?

That's the basis why I'm leaning toward travelling in Billy's sitch.

If you hold the ball, intentionally throw it, move to another spot on the floor, and hold it again, it's a travel.

If you hold the ball, fumble it, then intentionally move it on the floor to a new spot, then hold it again, shouldn't it still be a travel?

While you certainly cannot penalize the fumble, I see just cause in the intentional movement. What difference does it make whether you intentionally move the ball from one spot to the other -- resulting in control on both ends -- via the air or the floor?

Time Out ???
 

In a "had to be there scenario", yes, I would. So, I guess that means that he had player control. And, I guess that since he moved his pivot foot while having player control (I know that he wasn't dribbling, so he must have then "holding" the ball, no other choice), then he traveled.

Still doesn't feel right. So that means that in the situations where a player taps a rebound in the air like a volleyball for eighty-four feet, or bobbles a ball after catching a pass for eighty-four feet, or plays pinball with a ball on the floor for eighty-four feet, the only way we can rule this illegal is if we would have granted a timeout in those situations?

There has to be a better way. Something is rotten in the state of the NFHS (Apologizes to Billy Shakespeare)

Ah, no, you don't. Because once he's neither holding nor dribbling it, there is no player control.

Ah, no, as player control is defined in the rule book. Controlled manner is something you've just made up.

No. As per the definition of traveling in rule 4-44 you can only travel while holding the ball. See case book play 4.15.4SitD(d) also.

You can't apply rules based on player control like traveling to situations in which there is NO player control. That's what you are still trying to do.

If you legitimately feel that the ball came to rest during an 84-foot tap/bobble/fumble/muff/etc., then apply the applicable rules at that point of the play. But don't rule that the ball came to rest just because the play happens to offend your idea of how the game should be played.

Now bainsey thinks it's traveling to retrieve a fumble.

Nice job Billy Mac.

Nail On The Head ...
 

Your 100% correct. I did exactly that yesterday in the heat of of the game. I remember thinking to myself before I sounded my whistle, "That can't be legal", instead of the much more correct, "That's illegal". That's why I discussed it with my partner, and brought it to the attention of the esteemed members of the Forum. It was probably a lousy call, and now I want to see if it really was illegal, not to defend my call, but to learn something regarding such plays (rebound tap, muff pass, roll ball) that may occur in the future.

I can't imagine any Forum member allowing these plays to go on longer than several feet without sounding their whistle. Can you?

Why not? If the defense allows an offensive player to go the length of the court and do that, then that's on them. Nothing illegal.

Billy, I would hope that every forum member would let these plays go on until a violation, foul or the end of a period occurred. There's no reason under the rules to stop play before that.

Eighty-Four Feet ???
 

Unless you would have granted a timeout in such situations?

Granting timeout = player control = violation = dumb way to define player control. But has the NFHS left us any other options in situations like these (offensive rebound get batted to teammate in backcourt)?

I think you're thinking about this way way too hard. I've never heard of anyone having any real issue with defining player control...holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Your issuing is with defining what holding is and I feel using the timeout analogy makes this quite easy to determine.

In My Gut ...
 

And, as I said earlier, I would have granted a time out. That doesn't mean that I would have been right to grant a timeout, but I would have, and thus, I guess that I was correct to call a travel. But something still feels wrong.

There's part of the problem with your understanding of plays like this imo. Player control does not equal a violation. All player control means is that the traveling and dribbling rules now apply. What the player does after gaining player control dictates what we have to call. If the player travels or commits an illegal second dribble after gaining player control, we call the violation. And if the player makes a legal timout request, well we grant that timeout request. But if after gaining player control, the player legally dribbles, passes, shoots or holds the ball, we do nothing.

That's all I'm trying to tell you.

The accepted definition of when a player is "holding" the ball is when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand(s). That's one of the criteria that we use to judge when a dribble ends also. And holding the ball IS player control.

Pivot Feet ???
 

Thanks for your patience. Among other things, I failed to mention in my original post that the player in question moved his pivot foot several times while playing the pinball version of keep away with the ball rolling on the floor.

There is only a pivot foot applicable by rule when a player is actually holding the ball. Rule 4-44 as previously cited. Have you read case book play 4.15COMMENT?

Here's the problem, though. Billy's player never gained control after the fumble. I think you could justify an illegal dribble in my alternate play, but I have to say I'm having a hard time justifying any call in Billy's play.

Here's another thought for what it's worth. Why not a double dribble? 4-15-1 says, "A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times." The rule doesn't say the ball has to bounce or continue to bounce. Does this seem a more likely fit than a travel? The player completed a dribble, fumbled, then (while in control) batted or pushed the ball to the floor again.

No, he didn't. After the fumble, he never did anything that constitutes control. He certainly never "batted it to the floor," as it was already on the floor. A "controlled" tap does not equal player control, no matter how controlled it is.

Give That Man A Cigar ...
 

4.15 COMMENT: It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble. A player is not dribbling while slapping the ball during a jump, when a pass rebounds from his/her hand, when he/she fumbles, or when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it. The player is not in control under these conditions. It is a dribble when a player stands still and bounces the ball. It is not a dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

As my gut feeling told me, I was wrong. Great citation. Right now my cat is licking the egg from all over my face. Where were you several hours ago? I would have also been wrong to grant a timeout during said play. Two wrongs don't make a right here, they just make it really, really wrong. I'll email the citation to my partner. She thought it was an illegal dribble.

Disagree. BillyMac said the player deliberately and intentionally pushed the ball away from the defender. What if the fumbled ball was bouncing and A1 deliberately tapped or pushed the ball away from the defender once or more than once so the defender couldn't get it? Would you not have a double dribble?

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.

No. Tapping or pushing the ball do not consitute control unless they're part of a dribble. Pushing a bouncing ball, likewise, does not constitute control unless it's part of a controlled dribble.

How to judge this? If the player is able to bat/push the ball between consecutive bounces, I'd call it control. If it bounces more than once between dribbles *, I'm more likely to judge it a continued fumble.

* a rule of thumb with no known rules backing or contradiction.

Wrong. That's not what I said.

And JR, of course you wouldn't whistle a travel until the ball is held, just as you wouldn't whistle it until you hold it after throwing it from a different place on the floor. Again, whether the ball moves through the air or on the floor, what does it matter?

It doesn't, but the ball is never thrown in Billy's play.

I understand what you are saying. But in the context of a dribble/fumble situation we know that if a player ends a dribble then fumbles he may recover (catch) the ball but could not track down the fumble and then resume dribbling. Keep in mind in BillyMacs situation the player tapped the ball more than once consecutively all within a few feet. In my mind I'm seeing that as control. I guess this is a htbt situation. Your turn.

He's either holding it or he's not. We both agree he's not.

He's either dribbling, or he's not. Let's change to say the ball is bouncing. If A1, in the course of chasing the fumble, bats the ball away from the defenders and has to continue chasing it himself, he's not dribbling. He's merely knocking the ball away from someone else. Even if he had been dribbling before, this would now be an interrupted dribble (which by definition does not include player control).

Swing away.

Okay! Again, let's stay within BillyMac's description of the play. TWO defenders close enough to pick up the ball. From there let's go with your change that the ball is bouncing. A1 taps the ball away from the first defender and then again from the second defender all within a few feet. Is
A1 in control of the ball? Just from the description I'm thinking, yes. I agree with you if A1 bats the ball well away from the first defender just so he can't get the ball and the chase continues across the court with A1 again batting the ball away from the second defender then I agree he's merely knocking the ball away from someone else. Make sense or did I whiff?

Within a few feet is not significant. A player can bat the ball back and forth between his own legs and not be in control. Judgment call.

Snaq, could you (or anyone out there) give me a citation regarding this being a travel? I'm just asking to help settle an argument between another official and myself regarding this exact situation. Thanks.

4.44.5 SITUATION B: A1 dives for a loose ball and slides after gaining control.
A1 is in a position either on his/her back or stomach. What can A1 do without
violating? RULING: A1 may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a time-out. Once
A1 has the ball and is no longer sliding, he/she may not roll over. If flat on his/her
back, A1 may sit up without violating. Any attempt to get to the feet is traveling
unless A1 is dribbling. It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises
and is first to touch the ball. (4-44-5b)

4.44.5B (last year's book)

Many thanks to both of you! I can never seem to find anything when I need to in that case book!

JAR is right, you have to judge whether it's a dribble or not. The criteria I gave is a rule of thumb; it's the same rule of thumb I use to determine whether a player is a dribbler for the purposes of 9-3-1 Note (OOB violation).

True, but what is a throw? It's an intentional movement of the ball through the air.

In Billy's play, the player intentionally moved the ball on the floor.

I don't see a difference.

You grab the ball to throw it. When you grab it, you also "HOLD" it. That establishes player control. Tapping the ball in the air or batting the ball along the ground does NOT establish player control because the ball never comes to rest in the batter/tipper's hand(s).

That's the (very obvious ) difference. Ray Charles could see that.

Basics, bainsey, basics.

All true, JR, but the fact being ignored here is that the player in Billy's sitch HAD control earlier, then fumbled. If you think that doesn't matter, consider this...

*Airborne version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 releases the ball, and it's not a try for goal. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 moves to another spot on the court, and catches the ball. (Player control.) Travelling.

*Ground version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 fumbles the ball. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 bats the ball on the floor, no-one else touches it, and picks it up at another spot on the floor. (Player control.) Travelling.

A shot would certainly end team control, but a fumble does not. Whether you get from point A to point B by plane or train, you still get there.

Lot of difference in catching a thrown ball and recovering one that was fumbled.

Even your airborne version is legal if, instead of "releases" the ball, you change it to "fumbles." Apples need to be compared with apples, not blueberries.

It's not about team control, it's about player control. A player may always retrieve a fumble. This is the same concept as the rebound tipped into the BC by the offense. Even if you're 100% sure he did it on purpose and the ball went precisely where it was supposed to go, player control is not established. You just can't go there.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The concept is the same, though, in that player control must be established in this situation in order to establish team control. It is about player control, whether or not you want to agree.

And again, directing the ball to a spot does not constitute player control, or the rebound play I just mentioned would be a violation. A controlled bat does not equal control, no matter how much you want it to.

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.

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.

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.

You're ruling this legal?

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.