What Am I Missing Here ???

[BillyMac]

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?

[Nevadaref]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[gslefeb]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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?

[Nevadaref]

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?

[crosscountry55]

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

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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?

[Altor]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

I am going with a 10 second violation.

The situation specified that the entire process takes 8 seconds.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Altor

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?