Airborne Rebounder Begins Dribble Before Touching Floor

[Freddy]

A rookie official -- and I give him hearty credit for this -- pushed back on a point that I was making last night that: A rebounder violates if he begins a dribble while still airborne.

I note nothing in 4-15 to back that up, but do have 4.44.3B which, though a different situation, seems similar: "...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."

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

[Adam]

If you're suggesting that we call the violation based on a case play that has a player jump with the ball off of both feet, I think you're wrong.

The rule is not in place to limit how early a player may begin his dribble, it is in place to limit how late the dribble may be started.

I would have pushed back, too, unless I'm reading you incorrectly.

[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.

[APG]

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 would say you're incorrect.

I believe that the intent of the case book play that you reference is so a player can't jump to shot...change his mind and start a dribble, and try to justify it by saying he never established a pivot foot, and thus couldn't move it in excess.

[Adam]

APG is right, the case is meant to close a perceived loophole. The rule is not meant to say a player cannot dribble before establishing a pivot foot, it's meant to say a player cannot jump with the ball and then begin his dribble.

[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??

[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.

[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.