Travel, carry, or nothing?

Jurassic Referee

Camron Rust wrote
The rule you cite defines what a player may or may not do while holding the ball but exactly where do the rules define "holding"? That is really the essence of this situation.

And that's exactly why it's a judgment call imo.

Eastshire

Camron Rust wrote
I think this situation actually exposes a hole in the rules.

Here is what I think:

A1 is not dribbling the ball...dribbing is "ball movement"

A1 is not holding the ball...therefore no travel.

It is not an interrupted dribble as it hasn't gotten away from A1

B1 hasn't earned a held ball

I think we have one big ugly nothing.

You're problem is that A1 was dribbling so unless he started holding the ball, he has not ended his dribble.

Jurassic Referee

camron rust wrote
i think this situation actually exposes a hole in the rules.

Here is what i think:

a1 is not dribbling the ball...dribbing is "ball movement"

a1 is not holding the ball...therefore no travel.

it is not an interrupted dribble as it hasn't gotten away from a1

b1 hasn't earned a held ball

i think we have one big ugly nothing.

bob jenkins

Camron Rust wrote
I think this situation actually exposes a hole in the rules.

Here is what I think:

A1 is not dribbling the ball...dribbing is "ball movement"

A1 is not holding the ball...therefore no travel.

It is not an interrupted dribble as it hasn't gotten away from A1

B1 hasn't earned a held ball

I think we have one big ugly nothing.

I think it's a "double violation." (rule 11-3)

Go to the POI, but do it without the whistle.

bainsey

Camron Rust wrote

A1 is not dribbling the ball...dribbing is "ball movement"

A1 is not holding the ball...therefore no travel.

It is not an interrupted dribble as it hasn't gotten away from A1

B1 hasn't earned a held ball

I agree with 1, 3, and 4. Still, if A1 pinned the ball against A2's leg, and both took steps, was it not established that we would have a travel, even though A1 still would not be holding the ball?

Eastshire

bainsey wrote
I agree with 1, 3, and 4. Still, if A1 pinned the ball against A2's leg, and both took steps, was it not established that we would have a travel, even though A1 still would not be holding the ball?

If A1 is the cause of the ball being pinned anywhere, it's traveling as he has caused the ball to rest in his hand and thus ended his dribble.

The only way in the OP you don't call traveling is if you judge that B1 caused the ball to be pinned so A1's dribble hasn't ended. If you don't have a dribble, A1 has violated.

Indianaref

Jurassic Referee wrote
And that's exactly why it's a judgment call imo.

Exactly, then we refer back to the calling official in the OP which was a travel.

Adam

bainsey wrote
I agree with 1, 3, and 4. Still, if A1 pinned the ball against A2's leg, and both took steps, was it not established that we would have a travel, even though A1 still would not be holding the ball?

There's no way you can call a travel if A1 isn't holding the ball. There are two exceptions to that requirement, and this isn't one of them.

bob jenkins

Snaqwells wrote
There's no way you can call a travel if A1 isn't holding the ball. There are two exceptions to that requirement, and this isn't one of them.

Maybe there are three exceptions? 😉

Camron Rust

bainsey wrote
I agree with 1, 3, and 4. Still, if A1 pinned the ball against A2's leg, and both took steps, was it not established that we would have a travel, even though A1 still would not be holding the ball?

I'll call that an attempt to circumvent the rules and call it a travel.

That would be like the play where the player who is on the floor sets the ball down, gets up, then picks up the ball. That is ruled a travel by interpretation, not exactly by rule, becasue it is viewed as an attempt to circumvent the travel rule in a way that was not intended.

Adam

camron rust wrote
i'll call that an attempt to circumvent the rules and call it a travel.

That would be like the play where the player who is on the floor sets the ball down, gets up, then picks up the ball. That is ruled a travel by interpretation, not exactly by rule, becasue it is viewed as an attempt to circumvent the travel rule in a way that was not intended.

« Previous Page