When the questions are easy, somebody invariably jumps in and answers it right away. Since nobody seems willing to offer any help, it seems you've brought up a difficult point. While everybody "knows" that you can't go "up and down" with the ball (except in one very specific case, FED 4-43-2-b2, NCAA 4-65-3-b2), there doesn't seem to be a black and white reason for this assumption. If you look at the traveling rule in Rule 4, the articles discuss what a player may do:
Art 1 - After catching the ball with both feet on the floor;
Art 2 - After catching the ball while moving or dribbling;
Art 3 - After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot;
Art 4 - After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot foot;
Art 5 - While simply holding the ball.
(Those are the FED articles, but the NCAA articles are essentially the same, except for the numbering.)
ysong's first situation is about what can happen when the player catches the ball with both feet on the ground, but
before either foot becomes the pivot foot. Articles 3 and 4 don't apply at all to the question, b/c article 3 assumes a pivot has been established (so I don't think JR's reply applies here) and article 4 assumes that neither foot
can be established as the pivot. Article 5 doesn't help b/c it deals with a player on the floor, or falling to the floor. Article 1 doesn't help b/c it merely says that when one foot is lifted, the other becomes the pivot. But the original question deals with a player who never establishes a pivot. And article 2 talks about how to establish a pivot foot when the player receives the ball with one or both feet off the floor.
So what is the rule basis for calling a travel when a player with the ball, but before establishing a pivot foot, jumps up and then lands?
It's a major cop-out, but the answer is in the casebook. It's in case 4.43.3B.
Quote:
|
4.43.3 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.
|
So even though no pivot foot has been established in such cases, one foot "must be considered" to be the pivot anyway. So in cases where no pivot has been established, we're supposed to rule
as if there was one.
Maybe they should just re-word Article 4 to say "After coming to a stop when either (a) neither foot can be a pivot or (b) no pivot has been established. . ."
Now what about a player who hops around on his non-pivot foot?
[Edited by ChuckElias on Aug 5th, 2004 at 02:38 PM]