Backcourt

[BryanV21]

I don't have the rulebook with me, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that the dribble has ended. That's my biggest hangup.

[just another ref]

Look at 4-15-6.

During an interrupted dribble:

No closely guarded count.

No player control foul.

No time-out granted.

No out of bounds violation on the player.


In short, nothing associated with a dribble is in effect during an interrupted dribble and I am quite comfortable that this includes the ball maintaining backcourt status.

I think it is also important to note that time is not a factor here. There is no minimum time involved in an interrupted dribble. The key is loss of control.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Look at 4-15-6.

During an interrupted dribble:

No closely guarded count.

No player control foul.

No time-out granted.

No out of bounds violation on the player.


In short, nothing associated with a dribble is in effect during an interrupted dribble and I am quite comfortable that this includes the ball maintaining backcourt status.

I think it is also important to note that time is not a factor here. There is no minimum time involved in an interrupted dribble. The key is loss of control.

I'm away on vacation, so like I said... I can't check the book. But that clears it up for me. So we're thinking we have a violation?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't have the rulebook with me, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that the dribble has ended. That's my biggest hangup.

Yeah, I know that's where it is at. And I understand it completely. We are used to things beginning and ending. And all in between is part of whatever we are talking about. I think that normal way of thinking is changed in this case by the specific definitions they are giving us. It is more what IS or ISNT a dribble as opposed to beginning and end.

I think they are avoiding saying the dribble ends when the ball gets away because they want the player to be able to resume his dribble. He couldn't do it if they said the dribble ended when it got away. thx

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm away on vacation, so like I said... I can't check the book. But that clears it up for me. So we're thinking we have a violation?

yes

[BryanV21]

I'm trying to think of how I'd explain it to a coach.

"During the interrupted dribble the ball gained frontcourt status. When your player touched the ball he had backcourt status, hence the backcourt violation."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm trying to think of how I'd explain it to a coach.

"During the interrupted dribble the ball gained frontcourt status. When your player touched the ball he had backcourt status, hence the backcourt violation."

Take a poll of every coach in the world and ask for a definition of an interrupted dribble. If I did start to explain this (which is unlikely) I would avoid the use of this term.

The division line causes more people to be unhappy for no reason than anything in the game.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Take a poll of every coach in the world and ask for a definition of an interrupted dribble. If I did start to explain this (which is unlikely) I would avoid the use of this term.

The division line causes more people to be unhappy for no reason than anything in the game.

While they don't know the definition like we do, I think the use of the term there is sufficient. I mean, I really don't think they will ask what I mean when I say "interrupted dribble."

But I could say "when he lost control of the ball" instead.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

While they don't know the definition like we do, I think the use of the term there is sufficient. I mean, I really don't think they will ask what I mean when I say "interrupted dribble."

But I could say "when he lost control of the ball" instead.

I think that would be better. Coaches notoriously see what they want to see and, in this case, hear what they want to hear. You say "interrupted dribble" and they're gonna just latch onto the "dribble" part. And I think most coaches are familiar with the 3 points rule.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think that would be better. Coaches notoriously see what they want to see and, in this case, hear what they want to hear. You say "interrupted dribble" and they're gonna just latch onto the "dribble" part. And I think most coaches are familiar with the 3 points rule.

That makes sense. Thanks

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

... but it doesn't seem that the dribble has ended.

NFHS 4-15-4: The dribble ends when:
a. The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both
hands.
b. The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or
both hands.
c. The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.
d. The ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to
lose control.
e. The ball becomes dead.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm trying to think of how I'd explain it to a coach.

"During the interrupted dribble the ball gained frontcourt status. When your player touched the ball he had backcourt status, hence the backcourt violation."

Explain it to him the same way you would explain why you won't grant a time-out during an interrupted dribbled.

[Raymond]

What is the purpose of the interrupted dribble definition?

We know during an interrupted dribble there is no PC.

We know we are not supposed to grant a time-out during an interrupted dribble because there is no PC.

During an interrupted dribble, if A1 legally leaves the court he can re-enter the court and resume his dribble.

So in other instances we do not consider an interrupted dribble to be part of the actual dribbling process.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What is the purpose of the interrupted dribble definition?

I've thought they needed the interrupted dribble term to define what happens when a dribbler loses control of the ball, but it isn't a fumble, because a fumble can only occur when you lose control while grasping the ball. They needed a term which allows a dribbler to lose control, but then be able to continue the dribble. It just isn't defined well enough. Because it contains the word "dribble" it causes some confusion that it's somehow still the original dribble, but I don't think it is. I agree with the rest of your argument - that makes the most sense to me