Refs rarely call the high dribble anymore. One of the Harrison's in a recent game was dribbling the ball as high as his face. I'm not as keen on the rules as some of you on here. I suppose several of you are referees. But is the high dribble not a violation of the rules?

 

As long as your hand is on top of the ball, you can dribble it as high as you want.

Refs rarely call the high dribble anymore. One of the Harrison's in a recent game was dribbling the ball as high as his face. I'm not as keen on the rules as some of you on here. I suppose several of you are referees. But is the high dribble not a violation of the rules?

 

Not a violation.

Not that simple. It depends on when he stops his dribble vs where his feet were at the time. If he doesn't gather the ball until AFTER he leaps he can then land 1 then the other. The first foot would be his pivot and he can move the other foot. If he gathers it BEFORE he leaves the ground then he has to land on both feet and has NO pivot.

 

The challenging thing is determining when he gathers. Even watching video later it is sometimes hard to tell so imagine in real-time. If the official isn't sure he's going to let them land 1 then the other. Add in that he may be focusing on the defender to see if he is about to put two hands on the dribbler or moving in for a charge and you can see why the official doesn't always know the the ball was gathered.

 

And on both of those, the player can then jump again and it still isn't a travel as long as he gets rid of the ball before his pivot foot hits again.

As long as your hand is on top of the ball, you can dribble it as high as you want.

Thanks.

Has it always been that way? Seems like years ago coaches emphasized dribbling no higher than your waist. Maybe it wasn't an infraction, just a fundlemental way they wanted it done. But seems like when I was a youngster (many, many eons ago) trying to play basketball that's what my coaches preached.

The charge/block is missed a lot...most officials will not call a charge if the offensive player does not hit the defender squarely in the chest. So when the offense tries one of these famous "Euro steps" and hits a defender in the shoulder it is invariably called a block, regardless of how long the defender has been stationary.

The charge/block is missed a lot...most officials will not call a charge if the offensive player does not hit the defender squarely in the chest. So when the offense tries one of these famous "Euro steps" and hits a defender in the shoulder it is invariably called a block, regardless of how long the defender has been stationary.

 

See post #75

The charge/block is missed a lot...most officials will not call a charge if the offensive player does not hit the defender squarely in the chest. So when the offense tries one of these famous "Euro steps" and hits a defender in the shoulder it is invariably called a block' date=' regardless of how long the defender has been stationary.[/quote']

 

Rulebook says the contact must be to the torso.

Kid dives on the floor, possesses the ball, continues to slide an addition 3-4 feet before passing the ball. Legal?

If a defender is falling early and thus the contact is minimal (to the lower body/legs)... Block/Charge?

Kid dives on the floor, possesses the ball, continues to slide an addition 3-4 feet before passing the ball. Legal?

 

Yes, legal.

If a defender is falling early and thus the contact is minimal (to the lower body/legs)... Block/Charge?

 

Have to see it.

Yes, legal.

 

If true, I don't understand this... Movement without dribbling = travel

If true, I don't understand this... Movement without dribbling = travel

 

VOR is correct.

 

Rulebook allows it.

How is that any different than a player rolling with possession of the ball

Have to see it.

 

I guess my question was more... Is "he was falling early" a reasonable explanation for a call being a block rather than charge