4-4-2 & 4-4-3

That doesn't back up your claim any more than 12-5-2 once 4-4-6 is considered.

And I do agree with the violation in principle, but those rules just don't support your above statement.

The whole point is that 4-4-6 is not to be considered. If there is an interrupted dribble (and there is here, it's a given in the OP) then, by definition there is no player control. If there is no player control, then there is no dribble. If there is no player control and no dribble then 4-4-2 /4-4-3 are the only rules which could define the location of the ball.

*I am struggling with this one, I'm trying to imagine this occuring and it would be helpful to have video of this event. Notwithstanding such evidence I'd have to ask myself at the instant that the event occured--"was there player control or not?" Based on the descriptive evidence provided in the post, it appeared that there was an interrupted dribble, thus no player control.

Define "during" then. During could be interpreted to apply to the time between when something begins and when it ends. The dribble has started but not ended. It is only interrupted. Thus, it could be during.

Again, I don't think that is really the right direction, but it isn't so clear as you like to say.

So, lets just call it a blarge. ;)

The OP states that the "A1 picks up the ball while still having backcourt status", after the ball touched in the front court during an interupted dribble.

For those who are arguing that this is a violation, would the call/opinion change if instead of picking up the ball, "A1 simply resumes his dribble" while still having at least a foot in the backcourt?

No, any touch would still give the ball backcourt status.

No,

Once you declare that the dribble is interrupted there is no longer player control. When the ball first lands in the front court it gains front court status. When the player "resumes" the dribble with a foot in the backcourt he has changed the status/location of the ball. It is now in the backcourt. violation still. thx

Where does it say player control is relevant here?

The relevant part is that when player control is lost the ball touching the frontcourt gives it frontcourt status. Pass, interrupted dribble, fumble, it doesn't matter. Ball in frontcourt, still in team control, now touched by player in backcourt is a violation.

It's relevant to the status of the ball, IMO. If there is no PC, how can the ball maintain BC status?

I'm fleshing this out, and I'm probably going to land on your side before it's all said and done. My only point right now is the rule isn't as clear cut as some seem to be saying it is. We're having to infer a few things here.

1. The rule simply says "during a dribble".
2. The rules define when a dribble starts, when it ends, and when it's interrupted. Nowhere does it say that the time of interruption is excluded from the "during" portion that, to me, without explicit statements to the contrary, would include the time between the beginning and end of the dribble. We can potentially infer this, but it's not stated.

It may well be there intent, but that's only a guess and to claim otherwise is getting ahead of ourselves, IMO.

Well said...that is pretty much my stance as well.

The rule does not take the length of time of the interruption into account, so it should be deemed an interrupted dribble. So we're talking about a dribbler, meaning the three points rule should still be in effect.

Therefore, it is not a violation.

The intent of player control being lost during an interrupted dribble is for fouls, and shouldn't be applied here. At least that's how it was during another rule discussion, where I tried to apply one definition to a ruling.

My final thoughts on it...hopefully....


Ball location rule: During a DRIBBLE from BC To FC...three point contact etc. required...

Definition of dribble in rule 4.
1. Player in control
2. Batting, intentionally pushing ball to floor...

Must have both to meet THE definition of dribble.

Interrupted dribble definition-- ball deflects off leg or gets away. No player control. (Player isn't intentionally batting or pushing ball.)

Two very different things-nearly opposite when you look at each definition. An interrupted dribble, by definition (no player control and ball getting away) cannot be A dribble because the player is not in control and batting the ball intentionally. It is excluded from the definition of dribble. a Dribble, by its definition, (player in control intentionally batting ball) cannot be an interrupted dribble.

The ball location rule says" during a dribble." Drafters used the term and made the definition above. . They also drafted interrupted dribble definition. If they wanted that included in the ball location stuff they could have said "during a dribble or interrupted dribble"....three points apply. They didn't so only when the dribble definition requirements are met do 3 points apply. Must be player control and intentional batting. Thx