That's Entertainment ...
 

We agree here. My interpretation is not supported by rule. Sometimes we have to deviate slightly from the written rule and do what we do best, interpret. If this wasn't the case, there would be no need for a Basketball Forum. Everything would be as simple as black, and white, and there would be no need to have these great debates. Even if there was a Basketball Forum, it would be a pretty boring forum, and probably go out of business, and then where would Mark Padgett practice his stand up material?

The "Sureness" Spectrum ...
 

You're probably correct. I'm sure that most officials strive for anywhere between 51% and 100% "sureness". I try to be patient and get as close to 100% as I reasonably can, but there's no way that I'm calling something at 51%. If there's any chance that that attempt to start a dribble could possibly be the start of a bounce pass, then I'm waiting a fraction of a second to see what happens next.

They only knocked it OOB because they were forced to defend and illegal dribble. Not fair. Call the illegal dribble.

And what if the defender hits the ball OOB before it hits the floor?

I'd have to see it, but I think I got nothing. This would have to happen so quickly I'm thinking you really couldn't tell what the offensive player was trying to do.

You mean he might be trying to do something other than dribble? I've never seen this play happen where there weren't any other players around, offense and defense. An attempted bounce pass is almost always on the table. So is an attempt to throw it off the defender.

Exactly, he might be trying to do something other than dribble. That is a determination we must make. Nine times out of ten, on the start of a dribble, the ball will be touched a second time by the dribbler. But, on the rare occasion when it doesn't, the lack of a second touch should not prevent the violation from being whistled.

QUOTE: "This case deals with throwing the ball off the opponent's backboard or an official, not pushing it to the floor."

It has long been understood that the reason for considering "throwing the ball off the opponent's backboard or an official," to be the start of a dribble, is because, doing so, is the same as "pushing it to the floor."

QUOTE: "A fumble can occur at any time, but read the definition of a fumble. It includes the phrase "loss of player control". A dribble cannot occur when a player is not in control."

It is not my intention to re-define a fumble.

Most likely, we agree that a fumble can occur when a player has control of the ball. (4-21)

9-5-3 "A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless he/she has lost control because of . . . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player." (Please, note the wording refering to the dribble having ended, rather the dribble having started).

This seems to indicate that a dribble has both a start - ie: pushing the ball to the floor - and an end - ie: being touched, again, by the ballhandler, (thus, that touch would require a call of a dbl dribble violation), or by another player, (thus, ending any possibility that a dbl dribble can occur.)

9-5-3 seems to support the premise that Case Book 4.15.4 A is an incomplete explanation, because it takes into consideration the "start of a dribble", but omits the "end of a dribble", and one is left to attempt to surmise the intent of the ballhandler, to make the call, rather than judging the action on its merit.
And, Case Book 4.15.4 C takes into consideration both the "start of a dribble," and the "end of a dribble," and allows the official to make a judgement based on the complete action, rather than a perceived intent.

As discussed in another Thread, we are consistently required to make calls based on the action, not on our perception of the intent of the players.

[QUOTE=Rob1968;901023]QUOTE: "This case deals with throwing the ball off the opponent's backboard or an official, not pushing it to the floor."

It has long been understood that the reason for considering "throwing the ball off the opponent's backboard or an official," to be the start of a dribble, is because, doing so, is the same as "pushing it to the floor."

Not only is it just "understood" - it is Basketball Rules Fundamental #19.

No, what this is saying is that if a player has already ended his dribble and proceeds to fumble the ball. After he retrieves it, he may not begin a new dribble unless the ball was touched by another player during the fumble.

The point is, a fumble is the loss of control. A dribble is, by definition, continuation of control. They are mutually exclusive.

I'm going to walk back just a hair here and state that if there is literally no other option when he pushes the ball to the floor, I'll agree that you could call the ID violation even if something happens before he touches it again.

I just haven't seen that situation, nor has it been described here.

you cover both opponents backboard & official, how about throwing it at a defender's leg, retrieve it and start a new dribble?

[QUOTE=billyu2;901029]

Legal.

But nothing has to happen at all. I saw the play once when A1 caught the ball, used his dribble, and pulled up near the endline out close to the 3 pt line. A few seconds passed, then something happened, I don't remember what, he faked a pass, defenders were just caught moving to their correct positions, or something. But A1 found himself with a clear path to the basket. Apparently he forgot for a split second that he had no dribble. He put the ball on the floor, took his first step........and then he remembered. He stopped and put both hands on his head. There was a whistle. No further action was necessary or allowable. It was the start of a dribble. A1 knew it. The official knew it. Everybody in the gym knew it.

Say a teammate is closest in this situation. Would you let the play go if A1 beckons him over? "Hey, A2, come get the ball. I can't touch it again."

I wouldn't.

[QUOTE=billyu2;901029]Thanks, Billy. I often subtly express my perception of subject material to avoid sounding sarcastic or overly argumentative, either of which can dampen a lively discussion rather quickly. To some, that subtlety is perceived as ignorance of the substantive content behind my premise, and they tell me to read rules or definitions. To others, such expression invites a comunal discussion rather than a one on one debate, and I enjoy the former much more.