|
Wed Feb 05, 2003, 11:42pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg 
|
|
Wed Feb 05, 2003, 11:42pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
MTD,
I think maybe you are visualizing the play differently than I am. From the original post, I see dribble, slight brush up against defender, loss of ball, step out-of-bounds, step back in-bounds, resume dribble. I agree with Dan, if no interrupted dribble, it's OB violation all the way. Otherwise, tough luck for defender. I may not know a darn thing about over-and-back  (see bktballref's quiz) but I think I got this one okay.
|
|
Thu Feb 06, 2003, 12:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Rules Interpreter & Instructional Chairman
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Thu Feb 06, 2003, 05:12am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rule 9-3.
"The DRIBBLER has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds." TOny, you asked what rule reference was the basis for my interpretation that the dribbler coming back in after going OOB's is illegal? There you go. I have emphasized DRIBBLER, becasue I realize that a player saving the ball and then coming back in bounds and being the first to touch the ball is legal.
|
|
Thu Feb 06, 2003, 08:01am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thank you Drake. In both cases the Sven described A1 attempted to dribble around B1, this is not a case of an interrupted dribble. A1 has either committed a PC foul against B1 or A1 has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds. And in my original post I stated that I was inclined (99.9%) to go with the out-of-bounds call rather than the PC foul.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio
|
|
Thu Feb 06, 2003, 08:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fellas, if an interrupted dribble occurs, it's not a violation for the dribbler to step OOB, come back in and recover the ball. There is no player control. The play seems to me to be an interrupted dribble. If you're interpreting that it isn't an ID, fine.
But if you're telling me that you're going to call this a violation on an ID, you're dead wrong, no matter how many times you agree with each other.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Thu Feb 06, 2003, 08:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
Seems to me one side of this rulebook duel is correct if the play happened one way, and the other side is correct if it happened another way.
Seeing as how NONE of us except Sven actually SAW this play, perhaps we should move on.
|
|
Fri Feb 07, 2003, 12:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
canuck
You are close - but there is no great truth out there waiting to be discovered by the observer. The rulebook can be used to back either observation of what occurred, and the observer must determine what they think they saw. That becomes what happened when the observer is the ref, opinion for everyone else  I believe that if the original dribbler pushed the ball far away and recovered it 20 feet down the court, few here would call it a continuous dribble. If A1 was able to step right around and recover the dribble just on the other side of B1, we would have many different opinions as to what was seen, and many more people would think that they had a continuous dribble than in that 20 foot example. And if the ref blows the whistle and calls it that way, that is what happened. If they pass and call it interrupted, that is the operative truth for this play.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
