The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 05:31pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 20,898
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?
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:48pm.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 06:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,841
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 06:06pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 20,898
Airborne ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 06:10pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 06:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vermont
Posts: 96
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 06:34pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 20,898
Pick A Prize From The Top Shelf ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gslefeb View Post
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.
Bingo. Thanks.

Is this the old "up and down" violation?
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 08:05pm.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 08:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,841
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?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 08:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,621
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
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 08:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 208
Hip Hop

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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?
I am going with a 10 second violation.
__________________
A Double Bonus is not really double.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 09:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 View Post
Yes. Backcourt violation on A1. Am I missing some kind of "stump the chump" aspect to this case play?
Take a look at 4-1-6. Does it apply to this situation?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 09:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant View Post
I am going with a 10 second violation.
The situation specified that the entire process takes 8 seconds.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 02, 2015, 09:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altor View Post
Take a look at 4-1-6. Does it apply to this situation?

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
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 03, 2015, 08:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 03, 2015, 03:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 03, 2015, 06:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 04, 2015, 10:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
At what point in the "hopping process" do you decide that 4-4-2 supersedes 4-4-6?
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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What am I missing here? kbilla Basketball 4 Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:45pm
What am I missing? TexBlue Softball 13 Sat Aug 13, 2005 09:27pm
Missing the bag... gobux Softball 2 Wed Jun 23, 2004 04:51am
Am I missing something? TruBlu Softball 49 Sat Aug 30, 2003 06:57am
What is missing? fletch_irwin_m Basketball 11 Sat Sep 21, 2002 10:12am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1