Leaving floor and starting dribble

[bob jenkins]

1997 Interps:

SITUATION #7: Al receives the ball with both feet off the floor and he or she lands simultaneously on both feet without establishing a pivot foot. Al then jumps off both feet in an attempt to try for goal, but realizing the shot may be blocked, Al drops the ball to the floor and dribbles.
RULING: Al has traveled as one foot must be considered to be a pivot and must be on the floor when the ball is released to start a dribble. The fact that no pivot foot had been established does not alter this ruling. (4-42-3c)

[deecee]

It doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out. Every scenario covers that one foot OR the other is the pivot. BOTH feet cannot be the pivot. You, and maybe your partners, are making this more complicated than it is.

[Shooter14]

No, I am agreeing with the interpretation, but I'm trying to find a way to explain to them why it should be a travel based on the rulebook. I need something directly from the book. When it says "after establishing a pivot foot" it makes it hard to explain why it still is a travel. It's frustrating for me, trust me!

[Shooter14]

Thanks Bob, and everyone else who has responded! How do you go about explaining a case from 1997? ha. I was 13 years old then. It makes it tough. But I do appreciate everyone's feedback. I wish the ruling wasn't worded "after establishing a pivot". Would make things a lot more simple.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

No, I am agreeing with the interpretation, but I'm trying to find a way to explain to them why it should be a travel based on the rulebook. I haven't been officiating as long as most of them so you know how that goes. I need something directly from the book. When it says "after establishing a pivot foot" it makes it hard to explain why it still is a travel. It's frustrating for me, trust me!

Sometimes, you just have to let others be wrong for a variety of reasons.

I had a discussion with a veteran (and association leader) a few years ago about whether shooting at the wrong basket is considered a try. As soon as I realized he wasn't going to budge, I dropped it.

Had another discussion with other association leadership (that same season) about whether an airborne player could legally catch the ball and land on his arse. They insisted his butt cheek would then be his pivot. Again, once I realized they weren't going to budge, I dropped it.

My two situations, and your as well, are so rare they aren't worth a heated debate. If your buddies aren't going to grasp a 1997 interp (understandable) or understand the spirit and intent of the rules (also understandable), then so be it.

You could always refer them here.

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sometimes, you just have to let others be wrong for a variety of reasons.

I had a discussion with a veteran (and association leader) a few years ago about whether shooting at the wrong basket is considered a try. As soon as I realized he wasn't going to budge, I dropped it.

Had another discussion with other association leadership (that same season) about whether an airborne player could legally catch the ball and land on his arse. They insisted his butt cheek would then be his pivot. Again, once I realized they weren't going to budge, I dropped it.

My two situations, and your as well, are so rare they aren't worth a heated debate. If your buddies aren't going to grasp a 1997 interp (understandable) or understand the spirit and intent of the rules (also understandable), then so be it.

You could always refer them here.

Thanks for the advice! You are probably right about that. I would consider myself to be a pretty good student of the rules and it just frustrates me when we can't come to an agreement on a rule. I know situations like that are frustrating for coaches when they are called differently, and I wish we could all always be on the same page. But like you said it's an obviously a rare play and won't be seen often.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sometimes, you just have to let others be wrong for a variety of reasons.

I had a discussion with a veteran (and association leader) a few years ago about whether shooting at the wrong basket is considered a try. As soon as I realized he wasn't going to budge, I dropped it.

Had another discussion with other association leadership (that same season) about whether an airborne player could legally catch the ball and land on his arse. They insisted his butt cheek would then be his pivot. Again, once I realized they weren't going to budge, I dropped it.

My two situations, and your as well, are so rare they aren't worth a heated debate. If your buddies aren't going to grasp a 1997 interp (understandable) or understand the spirit and intent of the rules (also understandable), then so be it.

You could always refer them here.

I had the same frustration explaining my opinion to "association veterans", as well as our rule interpreter. the affect on the arrow when during an AP throw-in, while the thrower still holds the ball, a double-foul is called.

At some point you just have to drop it.