Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ditttoo
Situation described points out that the establishment of front court status depends on the pivot foot being established in the front court and nothing to do with the backside of the player being in the back court. BOTH feet were in the front court so one must surely be the pivot foot; pivot foot in the front court so front court status is established.
Replies were referencing "three points" in determining front/back court status - since the referenced play did not involve a dribble, the point is that "three points" (ball, right foot, left foot) applies only in situations involving a dribble, which the referenced play did not.
In my last post, the point is that it is the pivot foot, and nothing else, which establishes front court/back court status when there is no active dribble.
|
I don't know where you got that method, but it is not correct. It may work in the vast majority of circumstances, but since it is not the rule, it will not work for all situations.
Two situations for which your "rule of pivot"
doesn't work are:
1. the player is not standing
2. a player catches the ball while airborne and while his action is covered by one of the three exceptions, so he is permitted to make a normal landing without respect for which foot comes down first. If the first foot comes down in the frontcourt and the second in the backcourt, the player's pivot foot is the one in the front court, but he has backcourt status per the rules.
If he lifts his foot in the fc, the pivot, and puts it back down in the fc, he has travelled.
Now you can continue to do it your way, if you wish and it is easier for you, but you will be wrong in a few cases and you should know that. Or you can change and call it by the real rule. That's up to you.