Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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. |
But, Camron, you and I both know this is a specific exception written for a specific instance - to get around the wording in 4-44-5(b). Nothing more, nothing less. It is even noted as the corresponding rule (which you didn't include in your quotes...). The only reason that exception was put in was because otherwise the move of putting the ball down, standing up, then picking up the ball would be perfectly legal under the rest of the travel rule.
Besides, what does this have to do with the OP, where the ball never touches the ground, and the player never has control of the ball while on the ground?
What you seem to be telling me, in comparing the OP with this case play, is that somehow the OP is actually a legal play as well, but A1 must be getting away with circumventing a rule (in other words, doing something otherwise legal), so we gotta call *something*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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?
|
As mentioned above, it is an otherwise perfectly legal move under the travel rule as written, without this specific exception. Why was this exception put in? Because the committee said, essentially, "we feel it's more important that a player cannot stand up with the ball, so even though you found a way to do it legally, we still won't allow it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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.
|
As far as whether it's a travel, "foot movement" is certainly an aspect, but you've still left out one very important phrase in the rule: "while holding the ball". Every aspect of the pivot foot and specific restrictions all happen while holding the ball. (Yes, of course, with the exception noted above, but again, that's an otherwise legal move that is specifically not allowed when trying to stand up with the ball.) In the OP, all of the "foot movement" happens without the player holding the ball. That's why I do not believe it's a travel.
Why do I feel it's an illegal dribble? 4-15-2: "During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)." In the OP, the ball didn't hit the floor, so it's a violation. If the ball had hit the floor before A1 recovered it, it would've been legal. The case play 4.44.3 Sit D (b), was called an illegal dribble, with reference to 4-15-2 before it was moved to the traveling section. My opinion is the whole Situation was moved there because of (a), where it actually mentions a pivot foot, and thus belongs in the traveling section. But the explanation of why (b) is a violation has nothing to do with traveling; rather it essentially gives 4-15-2 as the reason. "In (b), since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal. (9-4)" It gives absolutely no indication of pivot foot, etc., which is the main basis for determining traveling.