[bucky]

Does the case play, although old, not indicate (via the boldfaced words) that a dribble is UNABLE to be started without a pivot foot?

4.44.3 SITUATION B: A1 receives the ball with both feet off the floor and he/she lands simultaneously on both feet without establishing a pivot foot. A1 then jumps off both feet in an attempt to try for goal, but realizing the shot may be blocked, A1 drops the ball to the floor and dribbles. RULING: A1 has traveled as one foot must be considered to be the pivot and must be on the floor when the ball is released to start a dribble. The fact that no pivot foot had been established does not alter this ruling.

Also, does not the current case play suggest the same?

4.44.3 SITUATION A: A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and: (a) slaps the ball out of A1’s hands; (b) touches the ball but does not prevent A1 from releasing the ball; (c) touches the ball and A1 returns to the floor holding the ball; or (d) touches the ball and A1 drops it to the floor and touches it first after it bounces . RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball remains live. In (c), a traveling violation. In (d), a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. Since the touching did not prevent the pass or try in (b), (c) and (d), the ball remains live and subsequent action is covered by rules which apply to the situation.