I asked this question in a different forum last year and couldn't get a definitive answer, I'm not sure if there is one.

If A1 releases the ball on his/her dribble and pushes it to the floor but hits his/her foot and goes directly back into A1's hands where he/she catches it. Does A1 have another dribble?

Rule book says a dribble is when the ball is pushed TO THE FLOOR. This was pushed towards the floor but never actually hit the floor. Is the foot considered part of the floor?

What are your thoughts?

When a player holding the ball releases it, it's a pass, a shot, a dribble, or a fumble. This most clearly is not a pass or a shot. This does not qualify as a fumble, because the player intended to release the ball. It's a dribble, because it was meant to be a dribble. JMO

Certainly an illegal dribble if player begins another dribble.

Even if this is theoretically possible, you'd probably have a travel, if not an illegal dribble.

Don't even try to justify a non-call with a techinal explaination....

...or are you trying to win a bar bet?

The most sensible thing is to call a double dribble. It was just one of those things that almost happened in a game and started me thinking (and looking up) what the rule would be.

I agree. The safest thing is to call the violation.

Playing Devil's advocate
 

What is the basis of a violation call?

It would seem the strongest arguement for a violation would be an intentional kick. However, based on the information provided in the original post, it appears that this should not be ruled as an intentional kick.

Rule 4-29 Kicking the ball is intentionally (bold added) striking it with the knee or any part of the leg or foot below the knee.

This is definitely NOT a double dribble unless the player AGAIN attempts to dribble.

[Edited by williebfree on Jan 13th, 2003 at 08:54 PM]

Hawks Coach,
If a player stands without moving her pivot foot and tosses the ball back and forth, from one hand to the other, whatcha got? ;)

This is EXACTLY what I thought before I made my post above :D

I believe we discussed this last year with no resolution.

I believe I'll stay out of it this year. :)

All I'll say is look for a reason not to call soemthing. ;)

I do not believe A1 can dribble again. This may be stretching it just a bit, but if a live ball strikes a player on the floor, it is as if it has struck the floor where the player is standing. So, you could argue that A1 begin his/her dribble, the ball touched the floor by virtue of striking A1, and A1 picked up the dribble. It was obviously A1's intention to dribble, and his/her own fumble caused him/her to have to pick it up again. Just my opinion.

Oh man,

If this situation was the biggest bone of contention in the game, were those refs ever doing a great job!

This is not true. You are thinking of 4-4-4, however, that rule is only used for determining the ball's location, i.e. whether it is in the frontcourt or backcourt, inbounds or OOB. You do not use this rule to say that a ball has hit the floor when it has not. Your virtual touching concept is not approved by the NFHS.
To prove my point consider the play in which A1 is behind the 3 pt. line and throws the ball into the lane where it hits B1 in the head and then goes into the basket without ever touching the floor. The correct ruling is that this counts for three points. If your interpretation of 4-4-4 were correct, this would only be two points since the ball would have "hit" the floor when it bounced off B1's head.

Therefore, the bouncing of the ball off a player's own foot does not constitute a dribble by rule. I say that he may still legally dribble after catching the ball. Think of what you would call if he bounced it off his knee! Great move.

To prove my point consider the play in which A1 is behind the 3 pt. line and throws the ball into the lane where it hits B1 in the head and then goes into the basket without ever touching the floor. The correct ruling is that this counts for three points.
[/B][/QUOTE]I think that you might want to find another case to prove your point.:D The 3 point try ended when it was obviously short or below the rim.

See Rule 4-40-4 and Casebook play 4.40.4SitB(b).

JR,
Thanks to your post, this play is now confusing.
It seems that the rules committee needs to do some additional editing. 5-2-1 was changed last year and some new casebook plays were added too, but possibly not all of the old were correctly changed.
Look at 5.2.1SitC(b) it says the opposite of the casebook play that you cite! This is what I was basing my ruling on.

It's a completely different situation,Nevada.You were basing your ruling on the wrong rule.In 5.2.1Sitc(b),the play is referring to the defense touching the ball on the way up(legal touching).The legal touching doesn't end the shot,which is the rationale for scoring the three-because the 3 ORIGINATED from behind the 3-point line.In the casebook play that I quoted(which is applicable to your post above),the try ended when it was ascertained that it had no chance of going in because it was short,off-line,below rim level,etc.Two different plays-two different rulings from two different rules.

What if the ball had hit his shin instead of the foot ?? What if the ball had hit his torso instead of the foot ??