More garbage from the NFHS

[Nevadaref]

It appears that someone with the NFHS got tired of being told that this play wasn't traveling.

*4.44.3 SITUATION D:

(a) A1 tosses the ball from one hand to the other while keeping his/her pivot foot in contact with the floor; or (b) A1 throws the ball over the head of B1 and then takes several steps before catching it. RULING: Legal in (a), but a traveling violation in (b). In (b), since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal. (9-4)

Notice the difference from the 2007-08 Case Book version.

4.15.4 SITUATION E: (a) A1 tosses the ball from one hand to the other while keeping his/her pivot foot in contact with the floor; or (b) A1 throws the ball over the head of B1 and then takes several steps before catching it. RULING: Legal in (a), but an illegal dribble violation in (b). In (b), since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is an illegal dribble. (9-5)

I don't care for this alteration because it contradicts the principle* that a player cannot travel when he/she isn't holding the ball as the rule says--"while holding the ball..."

*with the one exception being the case book play concerning circumventing the rule about getting up from the floor with the ball, 4.44.5 Situation B

[JugglingReferee]

E-mail them and tell them the garbage...

[OHBBREF]

SECTION 15 DRIBBLE
ART. 1 . . . A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

that is from the definitions and it is two years old I don't have the current book here to see but unless they have drastically changed this possibly added more that interpretation is in direct conflict with the definition of a dribble -

I would say that you have to have dribbled to have an illegal dribble since the definition requires you to push the ball to the floor you threw it up and over someone not allowing it to hit the floor I have a hard time calling an illegal dribble there, I would like to see some clarification and reason behind that interpretation.


ART. 3 . . . After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
b. If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
c. The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.

Above being from the definition of traveling and that pretty much describes the foot movement required for traveling which occured here so I am really confused.

Again this is from an older book but I do not recal major editorial changes to traveling the last couple of years.

[Camron Rust]

To be consistent, if it were really an illegal dribble, both (a) and (b) would be an illegal dribble since the only difference is between them is the movement of the feet (which is not relevant to the legality of a dribble) and not how the ball was handled.

A player tossing the ball into the air and catching it without it touching anything else is effectively considered to be holding the ball. Thus, it becomes a travel to move the pivot foot during such action.

[BillyMac]

The reason that palming, also known as, carrying, is a violation can be twofold. First, if the ball handler palms/carries the ball while moving, it's a travel. Second, if the ball handler palms/carries the ball while standing still, its an illegal dribble (double dribble). Two different violations, with one signal.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A player tossing the ball into the air and catching it without it touching anything else is effectively considered to be holding the ball. Thus, it becomes a travel to move the pivot foot during such action.

So a player can't catch his own airball?

[Back In The Saddle]

Depends. Was it a legitimate try? Or was he just tossing the ball to himself? Different scenarios; different results.

[PS2Man]

Is this really a big deal?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by PS2Man

Is this really a big deal?

Only if one is trying to teach newer officials about traveling.

When the rules follow certain principles, they can easily be taught and remembered. When they are unpredictable and capricious, they have to be memorized and are difficult to recall properly.

The NFHS is failing to understand that and heading down a dangerous path.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't care for this alteration because it contradicts the principle* that a player cannot travel when he/she isn't holding the ball as the rule says--"while holding the ball..."

*with the one exception being the case book play concerning circumventing the rule about getting up from the floor with the ball, 4.44.5 Situation B

It is also a travel to jump in the air with the ball (IE: jump shot) then drop it to the floor and retrieve.

So your assertion is not true.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Only if one is trying to teach newer officials about traveling.

When the rules follow certain principles, they can easily be taught and remembered. When they are unpredictable and capricious, they have to be memorized and are difficult to recall properly.

The NFHS is failing to understand that and heading down a dangerous path.

You're right. It can't be travelling, because travelling is defined as "moving the pivot foot in excess of prescribe limits while holding the ball" (paraphrased -- I'm away from my books.)

It also can't be an illegal dribble, because a dribble is defines as "batting the ball to the floor one or more times."

So, it must be a legal play.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It is also a travel to jump in the air with the ball (IE: jump shot) then drop it to the floor and retrieve.

So your assertion is not true.

Actually, that play fits Nevada's assertion. In your play, the travel is for moving the pivot foot before beginning a dribble. It just couldn't be called until you knew that the player dribbled. So, the travel occurred while the player was still holding the ball, but you couldn't verify the violation until you were certain it was a dribble.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Actually, that play fits Nevada's assertion. In your play, the travel is for moving the pivot foot before beginning a dribble. It just couldn't be called until you knew that the player dribbled. So, the travel occurred while the player was still holding the ball, but you couldn't verify the violation until you were certain it was a dribble.

Which is essentially the same reason it's a travel to toss the ball in the air, take 2 steps, then catch it. You can't verify it until the player retrieves the ball.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Which is essentially the same reason it's a travel to toss the ball in the air, take 2 steps, then catch it. You can't verify it until the player retrieves the ball.

Except that pivot foot moves after the ball is tossed in the air. Therefore, the reason for the travel is that the pivot foot moved when the player didn't have the ball...

[PS2Man]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Only if one is trying to teach newer officials about traveling.

When the rules follow certain principles, they can easily be taught and remembered. When they are unpredictable and capricious, they have to be memorized and are difficult to recall properly.

The NFHS is failing to understand that and heading down a dangerous path.

Dangerous path? Is someone going to die as a result?