Airborne Rebounder Begins Dribble Before Touching Floor

[tref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Am I correct that this casebook sitch also would apply to a rebounder who begins a dribble while still airborne?

I dont think so...

Originally Posted by Freddy

"...one foot must be considered to be the pivot and must be on the floor when the ball is released to start a dribble. The fact that no pivot foot had been established does not alter this ruling."

That statement pertains to the specific play (caught the pass, landed & jumped) not to be applied to rebounding where the player has not touched the wood while holding the ball.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by tref

I dont think so...That statement pertains to the specific play (caught the pass, landed & jumped) not to be applied to rebounding where the player has not touched the wood while holding the ball.

OK, I'm clear on the fact that an airborne rebounder may begin a dribble without establishing a pivot foot.
Since 4-15-3 says, "The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted", is it correct to maintain, therefore, that a player who has not yet dribbled (has a dribble left) may not jump into the air then begin a dribble since his pivot foot had been lifted?

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this issue.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Freddy

OK, I'm clear on the fact that an airborne rebounder may begin a dribble without establishing a pivot foot.
Since 4-15-3 says, "The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted", is it correct to maintain, therefore, that a player who has not yet dribbled (has a dribble left) may not jump into the air then begin a dribble since his pivot foot had been lifted?

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this issue.

Correct, because the case book play specifically says, that one of the feet has to be a pivot foot (in the case where a player is on the floor with both feet and hasn't established a pivot foot). Thus, the pivot foot was lifted before the ball was released to start a dribble.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

OK, I'm clear on the fact that an airborne rebounder may begin a dribble without establishing a pivot foot.
Since 4-15-3 says, "The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted", is it correct to maintain, therefore, that a player who has not yet dribbled (has a dribble left) may not jump into the air then begin a dribble since his pivot foot had been lifted?

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this issue.

Freddy,

I think you can answer this one yourself. What can a player with possession of the ball and both feet (or even one) on the ground who then becomes airborne do?

He only has 2 options. What are they?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Freddy,

I think you can answer this one yourself. What can a player with possession of the ball and both feet (or even one) on the ground who then becomes airborne do?

He only has 2 options. What are they?

Was there a rule change? I'm counting three.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Was there a rule change? I'm counting three.

Still 3 outs...

Wondering would that 3rd apply in college since OOB is not involved??

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Still 3 outs...

Wondering would that 3rd apply in college since OOB is not involved??

How exactly is the NCAA rule worded?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

How exactly is the NCAA rule worded?

Is that rhetorical?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

Was there a rule change? I'm counting three.

What 3? and @#$@$# TO's don't count

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by deecee

Freddy,

I think you can answer this one yourself. What can a player with possession of the ball and both feet (or even one) on the ground who then becomes airborne do?

He only has 2 options. What are they?

Shoot.
Pass.
Request a timeout.

(Just so you don't think I'm totally ignorant )


P.S. All this comes from a note I put next to 4-15-3 ("can't jump into air then dribble"). I now realize I was incorrect when I impressed that same idea upon the sitch with the airborne rebounder beginning a dribble. All of which will serve as a good example for the rookies I was working with -- that it's OK to push back on a rules statement...then let the book settle it. I'm good with that.

[Adam]

I'd say you owe him a beverage.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'd say you owe him a beverage.

I'll buy him a pitcher of daft beer.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

P.S. All this comes from a note I put next to 4-15-3 ("can't jump into air then dribble"). I now realize I was incorrect when I impressed that same idea upon the sitch with the airborne rebounder beginning a dribble. All of which will serve as a good example for the rookies I was working with -- that it's OK to push back on a rules statement...then let the book settle it. I'm good with that.

Maybe I'm being my usual daft self but I don't see the complication here. The rule and case study applies to a ball handler WHO already has possession AND one or both feet on the ground. It never covers a player who gains possession with BOTH feet off the ground.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by deecee

Maybe I'm being my usual daft self but . . .

No, it's me that was daft.

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't see the complication here.

I don't anymore either, as the clarity of the responses have solved my daftness (daftheit? daftitude? daftnation? daftism? daftimony?)

Not the first time I wasn't right about something. Probably not the last either.
Thanx, responders.

[bob jenkins]

I think that's why they put the play there. Too many think either that all violations are treated as "only penalize the first" or as "double" when there are several combinations that can happen depending on the type of violations.