|
Thu Nov 21, 2002, 03:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
How would it be cirumventing a rule if putting the ball on the floor was a dribble? It would be starting a dribble on the floor, which is legal, and standing up to continue the dribble, which is also legal, and the player would have used up his dribble. That rule only makes sense if it is not a dribble to place the ball on the floor.
|
|
Fri Nov 22, 2002, 04:09am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The player on the floor is trying to avoid having player control while getting up, so he places the ball on the floor.
As I said before, I believe the rules committee doesn't want this player to be able to circumvent the traveling rule in this manner, so the casebook says this is a travel. Unfortunately, the casebook does not tell us why it is a travel--just that it is. Now, that being said we cannot tell if the reason behind this ruling is that the committee deemed the player to still be in control of the ball, just as if he were holding it, or if they consider the placing of the ball on the floor to not constitute a dribble. Also since this casebook play deals only with a player on the floor, we cannot infer that placing the ball on the floor while the player is in the standing position would be treated in the same way. We simply don't have a good example. Therefore, I have to believe that we must rely on the definition of a dribble. This rule is written to cover "normal" situations in which players are standing upright. According to the wording of this rule, placing the ball on the floor, seems to meet the definition of a dribble. I will conclude by saying that it makes sense to consider actions to be in the category of the definition that they meet, (By this I mean, if something meets the definition of a pass--it is a pass. If something meets the definition of an intentional foul, that is what it is.) UNLESS the rules committee has made a specific exception. These exceptions can appear in the rules book, ie backcourt exceptions and the exception in the dribble definition for holding the ball and touching it to the floor, or they may be presented in the casebook. For example, we have been discussing in another thread how throwing the ball off a player's own backboard with no intent to try for goal, clearly meets the definition of a pass and if this player is the first to touch the ball again it would then qualify as a travel, BUT an exception has been made for this specific action in a casebook play. Hence, it is not a "self-pass" and not a travel. [Edited by nevadaref on Nov 22nd, 2002 at 03:12 AM]
|
|
Fri Nov 22, 2002, 08:36am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Think about this
As I read the discussion, these questions come to mind:
What would the ruling/status be if A1 receives a pass an then: 1. Sets the ball on the floor and picks it up again without moving any feet. 2. Sets the ball on the floor, ball rolls 5 feet, A1 moves both feet in order to pick it up again. 3. Sets the ball on the floor, ball rolls 1 foot, A1 pivots to pick it up again? My personal opinion is to treat each of these as a dribble and therefore a legal move. Yet I can see arguments going both ways (the elements of a dribble - release of ball, ball touches floor; and the case of a traveling violation when a player on the floor puts the ball down to stand up). The reason I set forth the three examples above is that the ball moves on the floor in all of the examples, even though in example 1 the movement of the ball on the floor could be unpreceptable.
|
|
Fri Nov 22, 2002, 08:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Think about this
Quote:
The question lingers: After the ball is put on the floor and picked up, what can the ball handler then do with the ball in hand?
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
