Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
In the OP, was a pivot foot established? Was A1 holding the ball the entire time? Was pivot foot lifted before starting a dribble? Why do any of these questions matter? Because they have to do directly with determining a traveling violation, and they have nothing to do with the OP, or the case play, for that matter.
|
All nice and fine until you read 4.44.5B (from an older book...current number may be different).
"It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is the first to touch the ball"
A1 was not holding the ball the entire time. A1 didn't start a dribble after lifting the pivot foot. A1 didn't establish a pivot foot.
I can easily make arguments for both the illegal dribble ruling and the travel ruling. Below is a case for the travel ruling...
The tossing of the ball into the air (or releasing it by setting it on the floor) are, alone, nothing. However, the floor situation is ruled a travel when the player resecures the ball. Why? It is essentially an attempt to circumvent the travel rule in a way that is not consistent with the spirit of the intended rule. It is effective the foot movement that makes it a violation. As for the throwing of the ball, running to a new spot, then catching it all without the ball hitting the floor....same argument. It is an attempt to circumvent the travel rule....thus a travel....but only if the feet moved.