Questions?

ChuckElias

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Now go back to the question. Are YOU gonna call an immediate violation in that case,and ignore the subsequent train wreck?

In a word, yes.

Dan_ref

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Now go back to the question. Are YOU gonna call an immediate violation in that case,and ignore the subsequent train wreck?

In a word, yes.

No you're not. You're too good.

ChuckElias

On my understanding, and nobody here has convinced me that I'm wrong, when the dribbler steps on the line (even without touching the ball at the time), it's the same as if he'd dribbled the ball on the line. He is OOB and the ball is dead. I'm not going to wait to see if there's a crash, or if he "retouches" the ball. Because the ball is already dead. So if he steps on the line and then we have a crash, I have the ball OOB to the defense and I judge whether the crash was intentional or flagrant.

So in all honesty, I would without hesitation call the OOB violation and ignore the crash. I am NOT playing devil's advocate, as I sometimes do.

As I said, this is obviously a potato/potahto issue. But I honestly can't see how you can interpret it the way you do.

mick

Originally posted by ChuckElias

As I said, this is obviously a potato/potahto issue. But I honestly can't see how you can interpret it the way you do.

Well, if we keep this going a few more pages, NFHS may deem it necessary to add some more words to the poorly written thing.

Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion.
• 1. dribbling the sideline
• 2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball
• 3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

I'll scan it to you.
mick

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

[/B][/QUOTE]Mick,quit using logic. You'll end up taking all of the fun oughta this thread! 😀

BktBallRef

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Now go back to the question. Are YOU gonna call an immediate violation in that case,and ignore the subsequent train wreck?

In a word, yes.

Agreed.

mick

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by mick

Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion.
• 1. dribbling the sideline
• 2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball
• 3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

Mick,quit using logic. You'll end up taking all of the fun oughta this thread! 😀 [/QUOTE]

Oooh! Stepping on a mine? I think that happened on this subject.
Where did edred go? He started it. 🙂

BktBallRef

Originally posted by mick
Well, if we keep this going a few more pages, NFHS may deem it necessary to add some more words to the poorly written thing.

Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion.
• 1. dribbling the sideline
• 2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball
• 3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

I'll scan it to you.
mick

mick, did you read the information under the illustration?

"A player who is dribbling (player control) and steps out of bounds during the dribble, even though he/she is not touching the ball at the time, has violated."

You call the violation when the player steps OOB, not when he touches the ball again. Look at the picture onn the left.

If you don't believe me or Chuck, surely you believe Bob Jenkins.

just another ref

You know what? The more I wrestle with this question, the more I think that it (like a lot of other test questions) is
really a non-issue. If a dribbler is in a normal posture dribbling the ball and steps on a line, the whistle will go off quick enough that he will not have time to put up his hands and make a show of not dribbling again. The official in this case probably will not actually know (or need to know) whether the dribbler touched the ball and the line at the same time or not. If the dribbler loses his footing, even slightly, and touches the line, even though the ball may be close at hand, I think we have an interrupted dribble. In this case, not only would touching the line not be a violation, the dribbler would be allowed to step back in bounds and resume his dribble. I would have to see the play, ("Ball games are not played on paper, they are played inside television sets." Kenny Mayne) but I think I have been converted.

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by just another ref
You know what? The more I wrestle with this question, the more I think that it (like a lot of other test questions) is
really a non-issue. If a dribbler is in a normal posture dribbling the ball and steps on a line, the whistle will go off quick enough that he will not have time to put up his hands and make a show of not dribbling again. The official in this case probably will not actually know (or need to know) whether the dribbler touched the ball and the line at the same time or not. If the dribbler loses his footing, even slightly, and touches the line, even though the ball may be close at hand, I think we have an interrupted dribble.

JAR, of course that is the way that you're gonna call it in the real world. Always a violation for being OOB unless something different occurs with it, such as an interrupted dribble happening at exactly the same time(in the official's opinion). When they put in the "interruped dribble" language, the main criteria to judge whether it occurred or not was "whether the dribbler could immediately continue his dribble." If they couldn't, in the official's opinion, you had an interrupted dribble.

The language in the book on this particular play is murky, though.

Around here, we thrive on murky language! Our goal is to make Chuck's head explode! 😀

PS- Don't get me wrong though. Mick's claims are certainly logical and defensible under the murky language,imo.

ChuckElias

Originally posted by mick
if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion.
• 1. dribbling the sideline
• 2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball
• 3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

Thanks, mick. I got the picture. And now, I can at least see how you could interpret it the way you do. And now, I also agree completely with you. The third picture is uncessary; I mean, unnecessary. 🙂

Bob and Tony seem to have the same interp that I do. I can live with that.

mick

Originally posted by BktBallRef

You call the violation when the player steps OOB, not when he touches the ball again. Look at the picture onn the left.

If you don't believe me or Chuck, surely you believe Bob Jenkins.

Originally posted by edred
1. A1 Dribbling along side line, ball is not in hand, steps on line, does not touch ball again, a2 picks up ball, did a1 cause a violation.

I have offered mechanically similar scenarios, definitions of ball location, dribble, player location, ... a picture.
I offer consistency of ruling.

What do I get? ...The recitation of merely a poorly written note to a written rule which requires additional exceptions in order to tie the rules together, ... and "Just cuz".
"Just Cuz" and "Just is' are baseball rules.

I await the retouch.
And don't call me Shirley. 😉

mick

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Originally posted by mick
if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion.
• 1. dribbling the sideline
• 2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball
• 3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

Thanks, mick. I got the picture. And now, I can at least see how you could interpret it the way you do. And now, I also agree completely with you. The third picture is uncessary; I mean, unnecessary. 🙂

Bob and Tony seem to have the same interp that I do. I can live with that.

[pick one or more]
It was dark and I couldn't see my fingers.
--or--
I can't spell good.
--or--
The letters were uncessary.
--or--
Just cuz.

mick

bob jenkins

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Play: Dribbler A1 steps on the OOB line, but doesn't retouch the ball. Despite Coach B's howls, Mick lets play continue and explains A1 wasn't a dribbler unless he retouched the ball.

Late in the game, A leads by 1 with time running out. B1 obtains legal guarding position on dribbler A1. A1 runs into B1, B1 is knocked to the floor and the ball bounces away without being retouched by A1. Mick blows his whistle just as the horn sounds.

If A1 steps on the OOB line just before he charges into B1,but he's not touching the ball when he stepped on the line or when the contact occurs, are you gonna just call an immediate OOB violation on A1, Bob, and ignore the charge as being incidental contact during a dead ball?

Not me, I'm calling a PC foul.

If A1 travels just before he charges into B1, are you going to call the travel or the charge?

ChuckElias

Originally posted by bob jenkins
If A1 travels just before he charges into B1, are you going to call the travel or the charge?

Is A1's hand in contact with the ball at the time of the charge? 🙂

Camron Rust

In that funny book triad, the third pane is just giving a play example. It is not saying the retouch is required to have a violation.

Bob's example regarding a PC foul and a dribbler hits the nail right on the head. The PC foul, like the OOB violation, doesn't depend on what happens next. The player is a dribbler or is not a dribblre. The player is in or they are out. If they are a dribbler and step OOB, it is a violation that instant.

If the player steps out before contact (as was suggested in a related case), I'm certainly calling OOB and ignoring the subsequent train wreck.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Nov 19th, 2003 at 12:54 PM]

ChuckElias

Originally posted by Camron Rust
The player is a dribbler (FED rules) or is not a dribblre. (FIBA rules)

😀

mick

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Bob's example regarding a PC foul and a dribbler hits the nail right on the head. The PC foul, like the OOB violation, doesn't depend on what happens next. The player is a dribbler or is not a dribblre. The player is in or they are out. If they are a dribbler and step OOB, it is a violation that instant.

...the foul killed the ball as it does in all instances of called fouls, but stepping on a line without the ball is always okay. " ...except for that funny little Note.

mick

Hawks Coach

I was a month early on this one - and at least two pages shy on my intellectual responses estimate. But the nail was struck fairly close to center of the head.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10367

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I love this one!
Always stirs up a bit of a debate. But I agree, you have an interrupted dribble, therefore no violation. I am just waiting for the what ifs to begin on this thread, then 5 pages of intellectual discussion 🙂

« Previous Page