Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
The philosophy extends only to the fact the committee doesn't want a player to have control of the ball while on the ground, and be able to stand up with it.
I think you're reaching a little on this one, without any specific written backing from an interp, etc.
...
Ok, now you're really reaching. Do you have any rule or case backing that even comes close to saying such things?
|
Yes. 2 or 3 in fact....the one about a a player placing the ball on the ground not being considered a dribble. The one about a player getting up while setting the ball on the floor. The on that says it is not a pass if it doesn't go to another player. The ones covering fumbles and interrupted dribbles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
What is a "voluntary release of the ball that is not a dribble, pass or try"?
|
You tell me what it is when a player sets the ball on the floor and is the first to pick it up. The best you've got is that is a dribble or illegal dribble but but we have case play that says it is legal for a player to do so and that it is not considered a dribble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
How can a player be holding the ball when they're actually not? What is the definition of an "effective" pivot foot"?
|
They're ideas...ways to think about the play. Not definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Besides, if A1 was still considered to be "effectively" holding the ball during this "throw", wouldn't the violation actually occur when the pivot foot is established and lifted?
|
Why would that be...Even absent the throw???
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Why is it not called until the ball is touched the second time, even after several steps? Why is it not a violation if the ball hits the floor before A1 recovers it?
|
Easy....Because it could be a dribble or a pass if it does touch the floor or go to another player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
You have way too many leaps of faith and undefined terms here to come up with an actual reasoning behind the case being a travel instead of a dribble.
|
No leap at all...you're just not connecting all of the dots that we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
I can actually see your point here, but I still contend it cannot be a travel due to the basics - moving the feet in excess of the prescribed limits while holding the ball. In spite of your assertion, a player can't be holding the ball, if they're not holding the ball.  You have absolutely no other rule basics that come close to that philosophy. |
There are several...
1. A player who was in the lane for under 3 seconds lifts his foot from the lane such that they are only touching outside the lane. They are still considred to be in the lane until they touch outside of it with BOTH feet. And this is contrary to the primary location rule that says you are where you are touching.
2. There was once an interpretation (can't remember where and don't have the time to find it) that deemed it 3 seconds for a player to step OOB below the lane in order to avoid the 3 second call.
3. An airborne player who has released a shot is till treated as if they have player control...even though they don't.
4. Finally, the case where the player sets the ball on the floor and gets up....the ONLY way to get traveling out of that is if the player is considred to be holding the ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
The rule also says "...or pushes the ball to the floor", and a throw is obviously closer to a push than a bat.
|
Not in the part that talks about it being OK to bat it into the air as long as it is allowed to hit the floor...which is defined as only OK "during a dribble"...not in the start of a dribble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
I know you're trying hard to defend the NFHS and the case play change. But you're not doing a good job quite yet. Kepp trying though.  |