What Am I Missing Here ???
 

We were discussing basketball rules at work today. Most of my colleagues believed that in order to travel a player must take more than three steps. I explained to them that officials don't need to count steps, they just need to keep track of the pivot foot, and understand the limits that the rules put on the movement of the pivot foot. To start a dribble, the ball must be released before the pivot foot is lifted. On a pass, or a shot, the pivot foot may be lifted, but may not return to the floor before the ball is released.

My supervisor, who is very intelligent, and logical (he's an engineer), asked me if it would be legal for a player, while ending his dribble, who is about to pass, or shoot, to lift the pivot foot, and, before putting that pivot foot back on the floor, the player would hop on the non-pivot foot several times before passing, or shooting, and then return the pivot foot to the floor.

I couldn't explain the legality, or illegality, of this situation.

What am I missing here? Help?

There used to be a case play about a player who gained control of a rebound with both feet on the floor and then jumped into the air. Since he had not yet established a pivot foot, the question was can he legally land.
The ruling was no and the explanation was that one of his feet must be considered a pivot when he becomes airborne.

The airborne ruling would apply to your situation too. Once a player becomes airborne, he must pass or shoot, unless he executes a proper jump stop.

Airborne ...
 

Sounds good Nevadaref. Thanks.

Do you have any citations to support your interpretation?

Keep in mind, that unlike your rebounder situation, my situation has the player with an already established, and identified, pivot foot, that stays in the air (off the floor) within legal limits. My question deals with the non-pivot foot.

Hop = Jump
 

4-44-3b

If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

Pick A Prize From The Top Shelf ...
 

Bingo. Thanks.

Is this the old "up and down" violation?

Since you and your engineering pals wish to discuss hopping on one foot plays...

A1 receives an inbounds pass from his teammate while in Team A's backcourt. He dribbles to the division line and proceeds to hop up and down on his right foot while continuing to dribble. In this manner he crosses the division line and enters the FT semicircle in the frontcourt. At this point he turns around and returns to the backcourt while continuing to dribble and hop only on his right foot. This entire process takes eight seconds.

Has A1 committed any violation?

Yes. Backcourt violation on A1. Am I missing some kind of "stump the chump" aspect to this case play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hip Hop
 

I am going with a 10 second violation.

Take a look at 4-1-6. Does it apply to this situation?

The situation specified that the entire process takes 8 seconds.

I assume you meant 4-4-6. Fair point. But WRT this situation, that seems to be in direct conflict with 4-4-2.

If I ever see this (doubtful), I know what the intent of 4-4-6 is and I will defer to the more reasonable logic of 4-4-2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At what point in the "hopping process" do you decide that 4-4-2 supersedes 4-4-6?

When the "hopper" is far enough across the division line that a reasonable person would not expect him/her to be able to return to the backcourt in one stride length or less.

In Nevada's hypothetical situation, the hopper got all the way to the frontcourt semi-circle. That's plenty far enough for me to deem the ball as having frontcourt location IAW 4-4-2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet, the rules say otherwise.

4-4-6 essentially says that a dribbler who is touching only the frontcourt and not the backcourt is, despite the criteria laid out 4-4-2, still in the backcourt until all 3 points touch the floor. So, unless you're saying the dribbler in the hypothetical case is no longer dribbling, there is no reason to suspend the use of 4-4-6.

That also means the 10 second count is still in progress and that will be reached soon enough....probably before the hopper can get too far in the frontcourt.

Either way, call me when you see that happen. ;)

I don't think 4-4-2 would supersede 4-4-6. However, hopping on one foot into the front court while dribbling with the intent of maintaining backcourt status would be attempting to gain an advantage which is not intended by a rule 4-4-6.

After a couple of hops, couldn't you use 2-3 to end the backcourt count and assume frontcourt status?

I'm very hard pressed to see how intentionally hopping (more than, say, 1or 2 hops to change directions or avoid stepping OOB) could be used for an advantage.

Well any scenario that involved hopping would be unlikely, but lets say dribbler A1 twists an ankle as he approaches the division line and continues to dribble into the front court while hopping. The defensive pressure forces him back into the backcourt where he picks up his dribble and calls timeout.

I think this would be an advantage not intended by rule.

I will apply common sense if this ever happens.

If such dribbler is capable of doing that while under defensive pressure, all without losing the ball, I think he/she deserves to be awarded that timeout.

Isn't calling the game according to the rules the common sense thing to do for an official?

In absurd cases like this I'll go with the intent of the rule. No need to complicate my life.

Surprised no one has thrown out the what if a player with one leg is dribbling the ball up...

I consider his 2nd hop his 2nd leg crossing over.

This situation might be absurd, but it is not complicated. What would make your life, and those of the people misfortunate enough to work with you, complicated is when you start doing what you think is the intent of the rule, rather than doing what is written in the rule.

Do really believe that?

You and I both know that we call a lot of things by the intent of the rule rather than what is written in a lot of cases. 3 seconds is a common example. Multiple fouls are another.

The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules ...
 

Time for a little "Tower Philosophy" here. No idea where it came from, just one of those things I've kept over the years.

"The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

Tower Philosophy ...
 

An expanded version from my hard drive:

THE TOWER PHILOSOPHY

The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

Some will claim that the Tower Philosophy only deals with fouls (incidental contact, illegal contact, advantage, disadvantage), which is why I prefer to use the Intent and Purpose of the Rules, found in the front of the NFHS Rulebook, which is not specific to only fouls (although some will claim that it is), but, rather, deals with all play situations:

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

You officiate how you do and I will do how I do, and am taught by my assignors, from the HS to the D3 and JUCO level.

If you think that basketball is a 100% rule book officiated game then I can't imagine where you are working, because on the east and west coast, where I have officiated, it is not.

The Tower Philosophy, as good is at is is also equally flawed. If we actually followed the Tower Philosophy for what it is, we'd also ignore situations when a ball handler barely steps OOB since stepping slightly OOB really has no effect on the game. It essentially creates a nebulous set of violations that are too trivial to call, but, yet, equally trivial violations are expected to never be missed. It is more of an excuse for just approximating knowledge of the rules and recognition of events than anything else.

The Tower philosophy is a kissing cousin of the Soccer concept of "trifling," which is applied primarily to fouls, but sometimes to other violations -- but never to the ball leaving the field of play.

IMHO, the Tower philosophy (like trifling) is a powerful tool in the right hands (a skilled and knowledgeable official) and an unmitigated disaster in the hands of the overwhelmed official who uses it as an excuse rather than a tool. YMMV.