Leaving floor and starting dribble
 

NFHS

I've always been under the impression that when a player who is in possession feet leave the floor, the player MUST pass or shoot.

But the rulebook says something like (don't have it on me right now) "After establishing a pivot foot-a player who leaves the floor must pass or shoot".

A group of officials kicked around the scenario of a player who catches the ball, doesn't pivot and goes up for a shot can then still start a dribble because the pivot hasn't been established. I still believe this is a travel. How could I convince them otherwise? Or is it not a travel? The rulebook's wording is not very clear on this exact situation because all I can find is "after a pivot has been established" I can find nothing in the casebook.


Thanks!

IT has to do with the pivot foot leaving the floor. If the player has not started a dribble and the pivot foot leaves the floor the player can only pass or shoot the ball.

In their case it's a travel. Until a pivot foot is established both feet are considered a pivot in this application.

Is that supported by rule in the rulebook? What is the rule for "pivot"? I am just having trouble finding anything in the book that says "pivot" can mean both feet simultaneously.

Is there any where in the rule or case book that says both feet can be considered the pivot foot?

And again I agree it's a travel. But tough to convince my partners otherwise unless I can find better wording in the rule book.

A quick reading of 4-44-art3b explicitly says their scenario is a travel.

"If the player catches the ball with both feet on the floor, either can be the pivot." (or words to that effect)

So if the player jumps (and then starts a dribble), he's travelled twice. :)

Heck, there is a case play where *neither* foot can be the pivot, but travelling is called. Sorry that I don't have my books handy for a reference.

Ok I borrowed a book from my administrator.

Rule 4-44 Art 3b says:

"After coming to a stop AND ESTABLISHING A PIVOT FOOT, If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try"

The definition of a pivot "A pivot takes place when a player who is holding the ball STEPS ONCE, or more than once, in any direction with the same foot while the other foot, called the pivot foot, is kept at its point of contact with the floor"

Again, my case is when a player catches and shoots without establishing a pivot foot. No where in the rule book can I find anything that says "both feet are the pivot" and no where in the casebook do I find this exact play. I do find similar plays in the casebook that says "A PIVOT FOOT IS ESTABLISHED" but nothing about straight up catch and shoot without establishing.

Again, I agree it's a travel, but it's impossible for me to convince my partners of that based on the ruling.

No case play in this year's case anyway, and the rule book says what I mentioned above.

I wish I could find wording in the book somewhere that says both feet can be the pivot foot, but I just can not find anything. I want to be able to justify why this is a travel but the book's wording doesn't help much.

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)

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.

Bob posted the old interp from 1997. Your buddies are latching on to a loophole that would provide an advantage not intended by the rules. This is a travel by intent, as expressed in the old interpretation.

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!

Your situation is addressed by rule 4-44-1. It deals with starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. If the player jumps, one of the feet must be considered the pivot.

ART. 1

Traveling is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball. The limits on foot movements are as follows:

A player who catches the ball with both feet on the floor, may pivot using either foot. When one foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot.


See caseplay : 4.44.3 SITUATION A:

A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and: (a) slaps the ball out of A1's hands; (b) touches the ball but does not prevent A1 from releasing the ball; (c) touches the ball and A1 returns to the floor holding the ball; or (d) touches the ball and A1 drops it to the floor and touches it first after it bounces.

RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball remains live. In (c), a traveling violation. In (d), a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. Since the touching did not prevent the pass or try in (b), (c) and (d), the ball remains live and *subsequent action is covered by rules which apply to the situation.

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.

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.