I'm confident we've had this discussion before, but I can't locate the thread.

Girls Middle School Game. A1 dribbling fast along sideline in backcourt. B1 establishes legal guarding position near the division line. As A1 dribbles past, there is slight contact and a bump. B1 is not displaced. The contact forces A1 OOB for two to three steps; ball continues to front court along sideline inbounds. A1 comes back inbounds and continues dribble.

B1 was not located directly on the sideline; there was perhaps a foot of space between B1 and the boundary. It was through this gap that A1 dribbled when the contact occurred.

I got nothin'; fans want somethin'. What do you have?

Reference Case Book if you can. Thanks.

Sven

I don't have my rule book or case book with me at work, but I agree with you...No Call!

In the both plays, you have two choices: 1) player control foul on A1 or 2) A1 has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds and in either case Team B will get the ball for a throw-in at the spot of the player control foul by A1 or the spot where A1 caused the ball to go out-of-bounds. I would be inclined to go with the out-of-bounds call myself in both of these plays.

I just got home from officiating and plead to being too tired and too lazy to look up the appropriate rules references and casebook plays/approved rulings. But the rules and casebook/apporved rulings for these two plays would be the same under NFHS, NCAA Mens'/Womens', and FIBA rules. But I am sure somebody will post them tonight or tomorrow.

I need to clarify. The contact was, in my judgment, too slight to merit a player control foul. Further, while OOB,
A1 did not appear to contact the ball. Interrupted dribble, perhaps?

It looked odd, but I think it was a legal play.

Sven

Lets forget about the contact between the two players and just concern ourselves with A1 dribbling the ball. When A1 is dribbling the ball, A1 (by definition) is in player control of the ball. Therefore, if any part of A1 touches out-of-bounds while dribbling the ball, A1 has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds. A1 does not have to be in contact with the ball when he/she touches out-of-bounds.

I believe that Sven is saying that the dribbler lost control of the ball, which stayed inbounds, and the player went out of bounds (unintentionally). He then returned onto the court a few steps later and regained possession of the ball. If this is indeed what he is describing, then I still have no call.

Yup,sounds like the dribbler lost control of the ball.If he can't immediately dribble after he lost control,in the official's judgement,he can legally go OOB,and then come back in bounds to get the loose ball.Casebook plays 7.1.1SitA&B are close enough.

You have a PC foul - (This BTW is one of my pet peeves when it is not called as a good defensive play is canceled by the referee.)

Rule book 10.6.2 . . . A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact.

One foot is not a reasonable chance disiance. Three feet is generally considered the minimum distance and it comes from Case book

10.6.2 SITUATION C: During congested play in the free-throw semicircle, B1 and B2 are less than 3 feet apart when dribbler A1 fakes to one side and then causes contact in attempting to dribble between them. Ruling: Unless one of the defensive players is faked out of position to permit adequate space for the dribbler to go between without making contact, it is a player-control foul on A1. (4-7-2)

Or it's nothing.

Does the contact put the defender at a disadvantage?

Most of the time contact like this is rightfully called an out-of-bounds violation as the player with the ball ends up out of bounds.

Rich

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RecRef
[B]You have a PC foul - (This BTW is one of my pet peeves when it is not called as a good defensive play is canceled by the referee.)

How is it a player control foul when the contact was ever so slight and in the mind of the official, not a foul?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
How is it a player control foul when the contact was ever so slight and in the mind of the official, not a foul?

Agree. Play is legal. Lucky break for dribbler. These things happen.

DID A1 GAIN AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE WHEN DRIBBLING BY GOING OOB THEN COMING IN TO FINISH HER DRIBBLE? WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF PLAYER WAS IN THE PAINT AND AFTER 2.9 SECONDS WENT OOB THEN COME BACK IN TO THE PAINT AGAIN TO GAIN ANOTHER 2.9 SECONDS AND NOT GET A 3S CALL?

Nick --

Interesting points! PLEASE DON"T YELL... I mean, please don't yell.

Nick,please don't yell.That's what using all-capital-letters mean.

The original post said that the dribbler was forced out of bounds.That means that he didn't go out of bounds to gain an unfair advantage.That's also why there is no call in this particular case.The other play that you talked about is covered exactly in the rules.You don't give the player another 2.9 seconds in the lane.You do give them a technical foul.Or warn.

sorry bout the caps, use it all the time even at work, saves looking for it

The casebook talks about a player "unintentionally" leaving the floor. In the first situation, I agree with most, it would be a no-call. If the player intentionally leaves the floor, at the least, a violation occurs.

I had a very amiable discussion (seriously) about this with a referee after a game. One of our players, in attempting to catch up to an overthrown pass, kept the ball inbounds, but his momentum carried him out of bounds. He was able to get back inbounds and retrieve the ball before any else could touch it. The referee called a violation. I was pretty sure it wasn't, but checked the rules and casebook at home later. The key, I think, is whether the player "intentionally" goes out of bounds.

At times I feel that the Tower Philosophy can be taken to the extreme. Here we have the D (B1) setting up in a legal guarding position to stop the advancement of the ball. Above that, she has shut down the lane that runs along the sideline. The O (A1) does not alter her path and makes contact. A1 has violated 10.6.2 “If a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight-line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, ‘but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble.”

Given the above we have A1 moving into B1 plane/space on the floor. She has not altered here path to avoid the contact. While one can say that such contact was not hard and yes Sven says “there is slight contact and a bump. B1 is not displaced” there is enough contact for A1 to loose control of the ball. Some have asked where is the disadvantage to B? My reply is why are we rewarding A for a clear violation of the rules? Rules that I may add, speak directly about trying to force ones way between the defender and sidelines or between 2 defenders. There-in is the advantage gained by the O.

We all are going to call a game in the way we have been trained, or based on our experiences, or lack there of. In my point of view the offence gets away with to much when we let them move into a defender that has every right to his/her spot on the floor. This to me is no incidental contact.

Though this play doesn't appear to put the defender at a disadvantage as the contact was slight, IMHO that truly isn't the case. The defender obtained legal guarding position and probably was attempting to draw the foul. The offensive player contacted the defensive player in a minor fashion, but contact occurred none the less. By rule this is a foul and the defender was put at a disadvantage. Why? Well if we don't call the foul and allow the offensive player to continue with the ball the defender is now in a disadvantaged position to defend the ball.

Agree??? Disagree???

Disagree. The rules require us to ignore incidental contact. Sven already said he judged the contact to be
incidental.

I love where this is going. I agree that the rulebook requires us to ignore incidental contact, however maybe I then need a definition of what incidental contact is. If you define incidental contact as contact that is unintentional or doesn't cause harm, then wouldn't that be the majority of contact? Most players don't intend to foul someone else on a shot...they are playing the ball. Most players don't intend to go over the back...they are trying to rebound. Do you see what I'm saying?

I do believe that the offensive player thought she could squeeze through this gap...and she very nearly did. At the same time she made contact and in my opinion it wouldn't be incidental as she intended to squeeze through no matter what the probability of her success would be.

I'm not picking on you Rich...just trying to understand your viewpoint and maybe get a better definition of what incidental contact involves.

Thanks...

Dave

If the defensive player was set up along the sideline and the player attempted to go where there was no room for her to go, she either caused the ball to be OOB or we have a PC. Reward good defense don't patronize a poor offensive decision.

Yeah, but the defender put himself there. If the dribbler was athletic enough to avoid the defender, with only minimal contact that does not displace him, why should the defender be rewarded? No whistle here.

Chuck

I think in this sitch chuck, the defender had good position along the sideline and the dribbler tried to go between the defender and the sideline in the process loosing the ball, creating "some" contact subsequently going around the defender OOB and then recovering the ball. I would have to see the play but would have a hard time calling nothing. Shouldn't we reward good defense here???

True Chuck...the defender put himself there and he was contacted, illegally, by the offensive player...slight as it might have been. This is good defense and I'm 100% inclined to agree with MN 3 Sport on this one. As for displacement, I don't think displacement is mentioned anywhere in the rulebook in regards to this situation.

Only if the ball actually goes OOB, or is touched by the dribbler before he/she returns inbounds. You don't reward somebody for just standing there. If standing there caused the dribbler to violate, then by all means award the ball. But as I said, if the dribbler is athletic enough to avoid contact and keep the ball inbounds, then you reward the athletic play.

Chuck

Incidental contact has nothing at all to do with intentional contact. Generally incidental contact is contact made by players who are in an equal position to perform normal offensive/defensive movement and doesn't leave one of them unable to perform normal offensive/defensive movement.

But the dribbler didn't avoid contact.

I guess we are all going to call this one according to our own beliefs on the interpretation of the rule. That is the wonderful/maddening thing about basketball officiating in that there is so much split-second interpretation that occurs during the course of a game. I can see why coaches get frustrated because one game your player gets that call, then the next game they don't. That doesn't make either ref wrong, it just means they have a different interpretation of the rules.

Thanks...

I agree that the contact is not incidental here. Contact is made trying to avoid a defender in good defensive position. On a drive to the bucket, no brainer PC. Why not here. Another thought (and a can of worms) is the player allowed to avoid contact by going OOB to avoid a defender??? I know none of us could call a T here but is this not leaving the court for an unauthorized reason??? If this was in the spirit of the game, we would have players streaking down the sidelinees OOB all the time to avoid screens and so forth....

SOOOOOOO....is this incidental or not? I would say no as trying to squeeze through a 1 foot gap is not normal offensive movement...at least its not normal without contact.

Sven already told us he judged it to be incidental so there ends that discussion.

Since when is a ball handler squeezing through a gap in the defense not normal offensive movement? Well, maybe not normal in that not everyone can do it, but why penalize athleticism?

Simply avoiding contact is not the issue.

None of us here, except Sven, saw the play in question. So perhaps we are each seeing a differing degree of contact. With that in mind, this is probably my last two cents on the subject.

In the very first post of the thread, Sven has told us that the defender was not displaced, and that the dribbler was able to go around the defender. Since the defender was not displaced, the probability that I'm going to call a PC here is next to nil. The defender has not been hindered from performing any further normal defensive maneuvers. She's still standing exactly where she was. So I see no way that you could call the contact illegal. Therefore, no PC.

Because the defender legally placed herself directly in the dribbler's path, the dribbler was forced to go around. She was able to do this; although the slight contact with the defender caused her to step OOB. (I refuse to even discuss a T for being OOB here! ;) ) But since the defender was there legally (we stipulated that earlier in the thread), this cannot be a blocking foul. The dribbler was able to keep the ball inbounds and was able to return her feet inbounds before touching the ball again. So no OOB call -- unless you judge that she continued her dribble when she stepped OOB.

So what do we have? No way I'm calling a PC without displacement in this situation. Even less chance of calling a blocking foul. The ball never went OOB. What we have is great defense and a very athletic point guard. No call.

Chuck

Chuck: If the play happens as you describe it here I am w/ you 100%. I think it is very true that we sometimes add things to case plays on this forum. It creates great discussion.

what I am asking now is, the defender is planted on the sideline so the dribbler has to go OOB to avoid contact. She/he pushes the ball forward just before the contact, goes around the defender OOB and returns inbounds and continues the dribble. Have anything???

From my extremely good position, I can say without doubt that the dribbler's momentum carried her OOB. As long as she does not delay in returning, we play on. :)

Chuck

Think about how charges are frequently called. If there is slight contact and the defender seems to yield, a charge is rarely called. If there is more forcible contact and the defender is clearly displaced, it is likely to be called either a block or a charge.

So all contact is not a foul, and lsight contact is frequently allowed (otherwise you'd be stopping play all the time).

As for an unfair advantage gpoing to the offense as a result of the no-call, I am not sure that A letting the ball get away is is a huge advantage. During that time that ball ball was not under A's positive control, B could have taken the ball (and a good, alert defensive team would have done so!).

I'm not so sure about this one. From reading the situation proposed by MN 3 Sport Ref, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the dribbler was attempting to circumvent the rules by intentionally going OOB to avoid the defender, thus continuing her progress with the ball.

Once again in a game situation this all happens so fast that you don't have the luxury that we have now of debating the situation and pontificating on the intent of the player.

Dave

After I read this, I went back and looked at the original post again, to be sure I remembered correctly, and sure enough, it said "Middle School Girls." I agree with Chuck about the fouls, not enough contact (frm the description), but I think it highly unlikely that a MS player could pull off the keep the ball in and step back inbounds before touching the ball. Maybe in a freak situation it could happen, but I'm guessing I'd call OOB.

This is exactly what I am driving at here. This happens in a HS varsity or college game, what do you have (NOT MS we have seperate rules for those) :eek: A defensive player gets good defensive position abutting the sideline and the dribbler pushes the ball around the defender goes around the defender OOB, returns inbounds and continues dribble.

I'm with you MN3SR!! What do you call though...the "T" or make it an OOB call even though its clearly not? Calling the "T" does seem harsh but it is the correct call is it not?

Dave

Check out the Note under 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."

This is not a close call. The girl, while dribbling, stepped out of bounds. That is an OOB violation. It does not matter if she was touching the ball at the time.

Hey!! Another Massachusetts guy!! Where you from? I'm near Springfield. There's another guy, Marty, who is closer to Boston. IF you don't want to attract stalkers, you can always email me if you want to say hi! Welcome to the board!

Chuck

Great, just what we all need, more Red Sox fans. :rolleyes:

:)

As a former player, current youth coach and varsity official - you have to give the defense a call in this situation. Either OOB or PC.

Coaches teach defensive players to cut off baseline & sideline. The defensive player was doing this. I'm sorry, one foot is not a 'reasonable gap' for a player to avoid contact. The defensive player does not have to be plowed over for a PC call to be made.

Second, this is a Middle School game. If a player at this level gets him/herself into good defensive position, then they must be rewarded with a call if contact is made. Most kids at this age do not know how to 'take a charge' properly by flopping to the ground. Give the girl the call!!

Some posts referred to 'displacement' of the defensive player. What happens when a 125 pound sophomore guard drives the lane and a 280 pound senior football player in shorts gets position? The little guy goes flying & the big guy doesn't flinch. Most officials (not all) call the foul against the defender because he was not 'displaced' or have nothing. This is what frustrates big guys. They then realize they won't get a call so next time they just pummel the kid. Your game just went into the crapper because you did not reward the defense for good play.

I could go on & on about how most officials do not reward good defensive play and how that comes back to ruin their game. However, I'll stop. And, 'yes', the rule book does support you calling a PC foul in the original situation.

It is amazing what one can acomplish when you quit being lazy and walk 5 minutes to your car and retrieve your rule book.

Like stated above 9-3 states the dribbler is OOB even though she was not touching the ball when she went OOB. This would become obvious when he/she continues the dribble on the other side of the defender. For those not satisfied, one could also call a double dribble via 9-5 as the player dribbled , passed/fumbled the ball by the defender and then started a new dribble.

This really wasn't that tough of a sitch. Work must be frying my brain today....

I hope it is not your last 2 cents. Please read what Sven said:
"B1 was not located directly on the sideline; [B}there was perhaps a foot of space between B1 and the boundary. It was through this gap that A1 dribbled when the contact occurred."[/B]

So in your eyes it is OK to force ones way through a "1 Foot" space, cause the contact which forces one OOB and not call a PC? If it is OK for you, so be it but it is not OK for me.

Not true. If the dribble was interrupted prior to her stepping OOB, it is not a violation.

BBREF brings up the third situation I failed to mention. D player same position as previous. A1 looses dribble (int dribble/fumble what have you) trying to avoid defender. A1 gooes OOB around defender and recovers ball. Legal??? Acording to 9-5 it is a DD if she/he dribbles again. But what if she simply recovers the ball?

Heavy sigh
 

No, it isn't.
A fumble and an interrupted dribble are not the same thing, so you can't say "...what have you..."
There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.
There is player control during a dribble.
Just because the player re-establishes the dribble does not mean the interrupted dribble didn't happen.

This is not a double dribble or an OOB violation.

Re: Heavy sigh
 

I was stating that an int. dribble/fumble were the same for the purpose that player control is terminated. Thanks for the clarification that the two are not the same. I am not disputing the fact that the player can not cause the ball to be OOB during an int dribble. They cannot during a fumble for that matter. What I am asking is it legal for a player to have an interrupted dribble OR fumble, Go OOB around a defender in legal position and

A. recover the ball.
B. continue to dribble.

He can recover the ball in either situation.

He can continue to dribble if it's an interrupted dribble.

He ccould not dribble again if the dribble had ended and he fumbled the ball, unless another player touched it first.

I agree to all above. The question I am still raising is the legality of the player to willingly go OOB to go around the defensive player to complete the above action.

That aside, agreeing that your statements above are true we now have to decide if the ball handler intentionally passed the ball or continued the dribble around the defender or whether it was an int dribble or a fumble. still w/ me???

Disagree. I think my explanation above explains why. No disadvantage to the defender, then it can't be a PC. Ball never gets OOB status, then it can't be OOB. You can't make something up just b/c "the defender was there". The dribbler made a terrific play. Why is that so hard to accept?


Again, disagree. A call must be made unless the contact is incidental. It sounds to me (without having seen the actual play) that the contact in the scenario is incidental.

Flopping to the ground is not how to take a charge properly. Flopping will not get me to blow my whistle.

In this case, the defender was not disadvantaged. He is still in perfect position to play defense. No call. If the contact was violent in nature, then maybe you have something, but it still wouldn't be a PC, as you seem to advocate.

Again (surprise!! :) ), I disagree. If the contact was slight and did not disadvantage the defender (which, in our case, it did not), then the rulebook does NOT support calling a foul on the dribbler. The rulebook calls that incidental contact.

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Feb 5th, 2003 at 02:29 PM]

If the player intentionally goes OOB to decive his opponents, then call a T. Otherwise, don't try and enforce this rule just because a player goes OOB.

Quote:

That aside, agreeing that your statements above are true we now have to decide if the ball handler intentionally passed the ball or continued the dribble around the defender or whether it was an int dribble or a fumble.

There you are, back to that word "fumble" again. :)

You don't have to know because it doesn't matter. The rule states, "An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler." It doesn't say anything about whether it has to be intentional or accidental. The simple fact is that the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler. That's all that's required.

All I can do is ask you to re-read my post that you quoted. If the defender is not displaced or disadvantaged, it can't be a foul on the dribbler. If the defender is legally in the path of the dribbler, it can't be a blocking foul on the defender. If the ball never touched OOB, and the "dribbler" was not dribbling when she stepped OOB, then the ball can't be called OOB.

It doesn't matter if there's one foot or one inch of space on the sideline. If all of the above statements are true (and it sounds to me from Sven's post that they are), then you have no call to make. If you disagree, you disagree.

I'm running out of pennies now. I think that really was my last 2 cents. . .

Chuck

Chuck,

The original post & you stated "there is contact". Where in the book does it say that the contact must be violent or defender must be displaced for a PC to be called?

Player Control foul is to reward the defense for moving their feet, not for taking impact. Does not matter how slight or violent the contact is, by rule if contact is initiated by offense w/ball & defense in legal guarding position, then PC is the call. If the defender obtains legal guarding position & offense w/ball makes contact, there is no "incidental contact".

The situation outlined shows a great DEFENSIVE play not a great offensive move.

quote:

Flopping to the ground is not how to take a charge properly. Flopping will not get me to blow my whistle.

-----------------------------

It would cause me to blow my whistle. Any time a player obviously flops and there's ANY contact, I call a block.

So, even if both players are within their vertical plane, it's still a foul?

Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

Contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

Sorry to be blunt but anyone who advocates that they call a PC foul every time a player with the ball contacts a defender with position is full of crap. You don't do it and you know it. The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul.

Ok, here is now officially, the last of my pennies:

I would recommend that you read the section titled "Incidental Contact" under Rule 4 of the Fed rulebook. Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.

The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul.

Contact which occurs unintentionally which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions should NOT be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal movements should be considered incidental.

I've edited the rule and made my own emphasis, but I think that Sven's situation falls in this category. Yes, there was contact. That doesn't mean it was a foul. The defender was still able to make normal defensive movements, so that's NOT a foul. The contact was unintentional and a result of players with equally advantageous positions, so it's NOT a foul.

I'm sorry if you think I'm beating a dead horse. But you keep asking the same question. The contact, as described by Sven, is -- in my OPINION -- incidental. If you choose to call a foul in that situation, FINE. But it would be a bad call.

WHAT?!?!?! Are you kidding? Hey that kid has great footwork on defense -- call the player control!! A PC foul is called when the defender gets to a spot first and the ballhandler makes contact on the defender's torso that puts the defender at a disadvantage. No impact, no PC.

Again, please read the definition of Incidental Contact. If you choose to call a ball game using the standards you just stated, you will have 3 hour games and no players left at the end.

If you still disagree with me, so be it. I'm outta pennies.

Chuck

So what we have here is that when a defensive player gains legal guarding position abutting the sideline (no room to go around without going OOB) the ball handler may go INTENTIONALLY go out of bounds to circumvent contact, return back in bounds and recover the ball or continue the dribble.

Now that you say "continues to dribble", it OOB.

Mregor

NO, I said returns In Bounds and continues to dribble. If this is an int. dribble (or not even) we are still in the debate as to whether this is legal or not. Read the above posts....

EXACTLY!!!!

I agree with each and every thing Chuck has stated.

Clearly not a PC foul since it sounds like the contact was no more than a glancing blow.
Clearly not OOB since A1 did not have player control when A1 was OOB.

Clearly not a block since B1 was in a legal guarding position.

My ruling: That's Basketball!

Great quote!:o Lets keep this thread going forever.;) Personally, I will rarely (never use the word never) call a PC foul if the defender "Flops". I've seen them slam the ground with their hands to make it sound worse too. Still won't get a call from me on a flop. I'll be glad to give them a call when deserved, but a flop will rarely get a call from me.

Mregor

We are?

The rules are pretty clear, it is OOB on A1 only if A1 has player control during while OOB. During an interrupted dribble there is no player control.

The only question is whether it was an interrupted dribble or not. If so, legal play. If not, OOB violation since that implies A1 was in control of the ball.

Chuck,
In the words of that immortal song,
"If you haven't got a penny, then a half penny will do":)

Here's my take,
I know this particular rule point has been argued before, but, if a dribbler purposely goes out-of bounds to avoid a defender, leaving the ball on the court, then comes back in and continues the dribble, that is ILLEGAL! Violation, B's ball. So in this case;
If B1 has legal guarding position, A1 "forces" his way through the gap, bumps into A1, goes out of bounds,
then regains dribble after coming inbounds, Violation on A1,
award B the ball.

I'm with Chuck,
If the contact by A1 did not displace B1, how can you call a PC foul? Don't do it! If the contact by B1 caused A1 to go OOB's, then call the foul on B1.

If you interpret A1 losing the ball then coming back in and continuing the dribble after re-establishing position on the floor, then no-call it and play on!

As I said before, if A1 purposely goes OOB"S then comes in and regains dribble, VIOLATION!

Chuck,
Nice posts regarding this matter. Well thought out. Great job with the incidental contact stuff.

Now, remember, I officiate on the "dark side," so tak it for what it's worth.;);)

The horse is dead, but I have to make a correction...

I meant to say "fall to the ground", not flop. I'm not advocating for MS kids to start watching Vladi. My fault in poor selection of wording.

IMO, if the offensive player initiates contact and the defender has legal position AND the offensive player scores on a shot, continues moving the ball up the court ... the offense gained an advantage, so PC needs to be called.

NO, I said returns In Bounds and continues to dribble. If this is an int. dribble (or not even) we are still in the debate as to whether this is legal or not. Read the above posts.... [/B][/QUOTE]

IF the player intentionally dribbles around the def player, steps OOB, comes back and continues the dribble, it's OOB, going the other way. They are trying to circimvent the superior defensive position by running around the player OOB and picking up their dribble where they left off. IMO, in this case, they never stopped their dribble. If however, there is a true interrupted dribble, the player can recover and continue without penalty. That's all I can say without seeing a play.

Mregor

Unfortunately we have went on about 4 different tangents here and since some people continue to insist they are correct and not see the whole situation and questions I am posing this post has gone astray. I will state the sitch1 more time and what I believe we have gained and then I must check out for the day.

Sitch A1 dribbling near sideline and B1 gains legal guarding position such that A1 may not go around B1 unless he/she intentionally goes OOB to avoid contact. (i am throwing out the block/charge argument here that is a different story)

A1 performs the following actions.

A. without loosing dribble, A1 pushes the ball around B1 goes OOB around defender returns and either:

1. catches the ball
2. continues to dribble

B. Looses the ball on an interrupted dribble goes OOB around defender, returns and either 1 or 2 above.

C. Stops her dribble throws the ball over B1 goes OOB, returns in and either 1 or 2. (no need to answer this one obvious violation here)

D. B1 stops dribble, fumbles the ball, goes OOB around defender returns IB and either 1 or 2.

Keep in mind the defender has legal guarding position does not force A1 OOB (goes out intentionally) and never touches the ball.

You've got it, although I have no idea what "circumventing contact" is.

"INTENTIONALLY" is not a black and white term in regards to basketball. Do you call an inentional foul every time a team commits a foul, when you know they're just doing it to stop the clock? Do you call a T if a player intentionally goes OOB in an effort to save the ball? Do you call a T every time the backboard is slapped?

A T for intentionally leaving the floor is to prevent a player from deceiving the opponent. For example, he stands OOB at his end of the floor, while his opponent is shooting a FT, in order to decieve the opponent into not knowing he's there. I'm betting there isn't a veteran official on this forum who would call a T in this situation presented in this post.

I consider myself to be rules knowledgable but I've leanred that you can't apply those rules legalistically or literally. Start calling a T every time a player goes OOB, and you won't be officiating very long.

I agree 100%. There is no way I would call a T for unauthorized leaving the court here here. I am just trying to make clear that the player left the court and returned of their own free will in order to avoid the defender.

PS what I just said above is circumventing contact ;)

Intentionally has nothing to do with it. If the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler, IT IS AN INTERRUPTED DRIBBLE.

Yup,we got Chuckie,Marty,and Bay Staty!
http://www.uselessgraphics.com/celb31.gif

Not in my opinion. Intention has everything to do with it. An interrupted dribble is when the ball bounces off a foot or the player looses it (wish I had a book here). If they intentionally bounce the the ball inbounds, step OOB, come back in, and continues the dribble, that is not an interrupted dribble. In my opinion there is no interruption and as soon as the player steps OOB it's a violation. I'm done.

Mregor

Have to see it. Even if A1 intentionally pushes the ball around, if the ball momentarily gets away from A1, the dribble is interrupted. If interrupted, then no violation. If you determine the dribble was not interrupted, then it is OOB the minute A1 steps OOB, so you never get to see 1 and 2. This is important, because some may think that the subsequent retrieval of the ball determines whether or not the dribble is interrupted - it does not. that determination is made the moment the dribble escapes the dribbler, IMO.

No violation - interrupted dribble.

It is truly and obviously a double dribble!

If A1 fumbled, A1 was not in control and also had already stopped the dribble. the dribble rule cannot apply here, because there is no dribble, just a fumble. If they pick it up, play on. If they dribble again, you have a double dribble, as with any othe fumble.

I agree with bballref that you don't call anything on numerous basketball related reasons for going OOB w/o the ball in your hand or on the dribble. The save was probably the best example. The OOB rule is indeed intended to prevent unsporting behavior. I would not characterize this as an unsporting move, just a player trying to keep going and avoid contact at the same time.

MTD was right, we just don't get enough interesting calls these days. Doesn't anybody have something controversial to discuss?

Based on what rule reference, Drake.

Sorry Rog, but the rule book disagrees with your opinion.

4-15-5
An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

Note that the words "intentional" and "accidental" are not included. The simple fact is that if the ball has momentarily gotten away from the player. Therefore, it is an interrupted dribble, no matter whether intenional or not.

It's the d@mndest plays that get all the responses, isn't it? :)

That's one of the most insightful things I've read from anybody on this thread - perhaps we can have 5-6 more pages of response to it ;)

This has been a great discussion because it gave us a chance to thrash out what is often misunderstood: incidental contact, fumble, interrupted dribble and OOB, judging contact on one-on-one play, and how to apply all this stuff realistically. And of course the ever present temptation to peel off a T for a player going OOB, which by now we hope no one will ever do without a very, very, very good reason. :)

Hawk's coach, I added this for you! :)

http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/deadhorse.gif


[Edited by Dan_ref on Feb 5th, 2003 at 04:51 PM]

I agree Dan - but this odd play comes up on the board every year and we have the same talk. Probably just need to take a nap I guess, then wake up and have some cookies and milk. I feel better already :)

Intentional has everything to do with it. In my mind, (however closed it may be :)), if the player intentionally bounces the ball around the defender, it is not an intertupted dribble because it did not "get away" from the dribbler. If it is intentional, they directed it to go a certain way. OOB violation. This thread has gotten so off track from the original situation. In the original situation the way it was posted, I would have no call with either the PC foul or OOB. Somewhere along the lines, someone posted the "intentional" aspect. That is what I was addressing. Got to go to a game. How many pages will this be by morning?

Mregor

Uh, Dan? It's beating a dead horse. Beating. Not eating. Beating. Hope this clears it up for you ;)

Uh, Dan? It's beating a dead horse. Beating. Not eating. Beating. Hope this clears it up for you ;) [/B][/QUOTE]What's your point?
-in Europe,they do eat dead horses
-you eat a dead cow
-you eat a dead chicken
-you eat a dead pig
-you eat a dead turkey
-dead deer,elk,buffalo,fish,moose,bear,etc.,etc.

The only thing ya gotta keep away from is the BoSox.They've been dead TOO long!

So, if a player throws intentionally throws the ball off his own backboard, rebounds it and dribbles again, he's double dribbled? :)

If by his own you mean the one in his yard, no way! Your court, your rules :p

I have just got home from first coaching my younger son's basketball team's practice and then going to a H.S. BSB/SOF umpires RULES/MECHANICS meeting so once again I am going to plead laziness and repost my orginal post in this thread:


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sven
I'm confident we've had this discussion before, but I can't locate the thread.

Girls Middle School Game. A1 dribbling fast along sideline in backcourt. B1 establishes legal guarding position near the division line. As A1 dribbles past, there is slight contact and a bump. B1 is not displaced. The contact forces A1 OOB for two to three steps; ball continues to front court along sideline inbounds. A1 comes back inbounds and continues dribble.

B1 was not located directly on the sideline; there was perhaps a foot of space between B1 and the boundary. It was through this gap that A1 dribbled when the contact occurred.

I got nothin'; fans want somethin'. What do you have?

Reference Case Book if you can. Thanks.

Sven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In the both plays, you have two choices: 1) player control foul on A1 or 2) A1 has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds and in either case Team B will get the ball for a throw-in at the spot of the player control foul by A1 or the spot where A1 caused the ball to go out-of-bounds. I would be inclined to go with the out-of-bounds call myself in both of these plays.

I just got home from officiating and plead to being too tired and too lazy to look up the appropriate rules references and casebook plays/approved rulings. But the rules and casebook/apporved rulings for these two plays would be the same under NFHS, NCAA Mens'/Womens', and FIBA rules. But I am sure somebody will post them tonight or tomorrow."


In both of Sven's plays A1 has dribbled into no man's land. In both cases, we have either a PC foul against A1 or A1 has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds. Several posters have already quoted chapter and verse for me that support my interpretations and I thank them for doing my due diligence. This is not a difficult play and we probably see them a couple of times a game if one of the teams is well coached on the art of playing defense.

What's your point?
-in Europe,they do eat dead horses
-you eat a dead cow
-you eat a dead chicken
-you eat a dead pig
-you eat a dead turkey
-dead deer,elk,buffalo,fish,moose,bear,etc.,etc.

[/QUOTE]

Whoa...I *was* hungry...maybe I'll just have a salad and some tofu.

Quote:

The only thing ya gotta keep away from is the BoSox.They've been dead TOO long!

More dead carcass. I think I'll skip breakfast too...

http://www.castlenottingham.com/index.1.jpg

[Edited by Dan_ref on Feb 5th, 2003 at 09:44 PM]

Thanks Mark but there's no need to re-post. We can all read your original response.

Perhaps you can re-read the thread and see that Sven said there was only slight contact, no advantage/disadvantage and definitely not a foul. Yet you are telling us that the man who saw the play is wrong?

Sad day. :(

He also states that the dribbler went OOB while the ball continued up the floor. Sounds like an interrupted dribble to me.

Hey Mark, with all due respect you can repost this until hell freezes over but it doesn't make it right.

- Incidental contact is not a foul, I don't care where it happens
- It's not a violation if a player goes OOB during his interrupted dribble.

Sven already said he judged the contact to be incidental and he also said the we *perhaps* had an interrupted dribble. I'll agree it's OOB if there was not an interrupted dribble.
These are all consistent with NCAAM, NCAAW & NFHS.

Wow! We said the same thing!

But you said it so much better than me! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/thumb.gif

Dan_ref said it well:


Is it any wonder we become addicted to this board...?

I gotta believe that one of the reasons so many of us (who, like myself, seldom post) keep skulking on this forum is to learn from the articulate, well-reasoned arguments on both sides of any given situation.

With few exceptions, there is respect for opposing viewpoints even in the midst of vehement disagreement.

These days that's a rare commodity, but very much appreciated.

Sven

Aw shucks...thanks! :D

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.

Yes, you did! And you're not even a:

Rules Interpreter &
Instructional Chairman

:D

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.

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,
I can't believe we actually agree on something!:):)

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.

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.

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.