Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
I slowed the play down to slow motion and the point at which the dribble ends has the right foot as the pivot poot. The next dribble was released before that same right foot returned to the floor. In my mind, there is no travel there. You could have a double dribble.
Also in the slo-mo, it did look like a palming violation to me. I think that the defender being tricked by the play may have had an impact on the official's ruling.
|
I went back to look at it again. I incorrectly said that the right foot was the pivot foot. It was the left.
Quote:
Originally posted by ref18
Mike, as 4-43-3-c "After establishing a pivot foot, the pivot foot bay not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble"
So when the next dribble was released before the pivot foot returned to the floor it would be a travel.
The next dribble has to be released before the pivot foot leaves the floor.
So there's 3 things that could've been called here, travel, illegal dribble, or carrying.
|
Julian, your text does not apply to the conclusion that I came to based on the video. I ruled that the player took two steps in between dribbles, which is legal.
I also came to the
new conclusion that the foot was released before the next dribble was started. Therefore, calling a double dribble violation could only exist if one ignored the travel. I think that a double dribble, by definition, is the wrong call. Why would you ignore the travel but call a double dribble?