Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey
Illegal dribble, of course. Why would we call anything else?
Oh? We certainly found it in the case book play you mentioned, and according to the 2008-09 book, it's specifically calls this travelling.
Finally, eh? Me, eh? Condescending comments aren't cool, particularly when they're inaccurate. Since the case book has shown that there was no dribble in the play, and it is indeed travelling, I believe I've made my point.
|
Sorry, did not mean to be condescending; maybe I was still grumpy from having to work on a day where my kids tell me they're having fun at the pool. Didn't mean to take it out on you.
If you've been around here long enough, you know there are a couple of instances where interps are made or changed without any basis in the basic rules. This is, in my opinion, one of them. I pointed out the exact case play had been called an illegal dribble back in the '06-'07 case book, and the action fits the definition of an illegal dribble - touching the ball twice before it hits the ground. However, either last year, or the year before, it was moved to the traveling section of the rules. My feeling it was moved because of the first part of that case (a) - the one where A1 throws the ball back and forth between hands while keeping the pivot foot down - this fits the scenario of deciding travel or not, because it involves a pivot foot.
The second part, (b), does not fit anywhere in the definition of a travel. Traveling is, per 4-44: "...moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of the prescribed limits
while holding the ball". This is why the case play is not a travel. It even says, "since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal." It does not mention anything about a pivot foot, or moving feet in excess of prescribed limits, which is the very definition of traveling.
We agree it's violation. We just disagree which violation. It's too bad you and the NFHS are wrong in this case.
