[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I mentioned it a couple of times before - I don't think they are trying to introduce or change a basic rule philosophy, but rather just saying "This move would otherwise be legal, but we still don't want you to do it because we feel not being able to stand up with the ball is more important."

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They're ideas...ways to think about the play. Not definitions.

I understand what you're trying to do, but we have to be careful to stay within the framework of of the definitions and rules that currently exist. Introducing ideas and definitions that have not been previously used can possibly bring up unintended consequences, like my questions regarding your "effective pivot foot", moving the pivot foot while the throw is in the air, etc. I can probably come up with more unintended meanings, none of which has ever been mentioned in any rule, case play, interp, rule fundamentals, introduction to rule changes, etc. Without any mention of any other wording to the contrary, we are only left with what is actually written.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No leap at all...you're just not connecting all of the dots that we have.

Sometimes adding dots that were not there to begin with can create a picture far different than the one intended. If we stick to the dots that we know currently exist, we may be able to come up with a more accurate picture.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Exactly; thanks for thinking of this this one, as this backs up my argument that they took a move that was otherwise perfectly legal, and outlawed it because they felt the underlying rule was more important. Since this directly violates the rule on player location (one foot on the ground, one foot in the air), would you be willing to "connect the dots" to a player who has one foot inbounds, one foot OOB, lifts the foot OOB and catches a pass with only the foot inbounds on the ground? It is a very easy philosophy transfer, but one we both know doesn't work. Why? Because the exception only applies to the exact situation of trying to circumvent the 3-second rule, and not because they are trying to change any philosophies about player location.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I believe this now falls under the current interp of an unauthorized leaving the court violation. Before that, I could easily make the assumption they were trying to do the same thing as the player who lifted their foot out of the lane.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

3. An airborne player who has released a shot is till treated as if they have player control...even though they don't.

Hmm...I think I follow your reasoning; but again, the airborne shooter rule is a very specific written exception, and without any written case plays, interps, etc. explaining how the philosophy extends to other situations involving airborne players, we're left with the airborne shooter philosophy applying to, oh, perhaps, only airborne shooters?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Again, no - they aren't saying it's a violation because the player was "effectively holding the ball" or "effectively moving their pivot foot", or any other philosophy, but rather they were circumventing a rule, which you and I both agree is the language we've seen involving this rule. This means the players found a legal way (loophole, so to speak) to get around how the travel rule was written to be able to get up off the floor with the ball. The committee said, "Yes, that move is legal, but we still don't want you to do that anyway". They took the exact same philosophy involving the lane violation situation you mentioned earlier - the players found a loophole to be able to effectively stay in the same spot on the court without actually being in the lane, so they said, "Yes, that move is legal, but we still don't want you to do that anyway".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

You still haven't shown me definitely in the rules where the OP cannot be a dribble, only that you have inserted your ideas about a "throw", etc. without any rule or interp backing on that term.

I'm still looking for the interp that mentions the play we've talked about before, where A1 attempts to pass the ball to A2, but A2 doesn't see it and runs away. A1 then runs after it and is the first to retrieve it. The ruling was it is considered a dribble, and if A1 had used their dribble prior to the attempted pass, it would be a dribble violation, but if A1 had not used their dribble, the throw and catch would be considered a dribble. Perhaps it's an NCAA ruling? This would pretty much settle the whole discussion, wouldn't it?