Four questions

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00) SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4-43-3a; 9-4)

... because that player traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor?

Also, keep in mind, that in SITUATION 1 (above) there is no question as to whether, or not, the ball has been released on a try. It hasn't ("preparing to release", "Instead of releasing"). Several posts in this thread (including posts by yours truly), have questioned whether there was a release, or not. The fact that there was no release in SITUATION 1 simplifies the play.

Still a great citation. Thanks Nevadaref.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Lah me. (in memory of Jurassic because he had a particular part in the previous debates on this)

In post #28 of this thread I provided the link to a previous discussion on this very action. That thread includes the correct NFHS ruling, which is traveling. The NFHS does not permit an exception for a fumble in this case as the NCAA does.

The ruling given below is the most recent issued by the NFHS and nothing has come out stating otherwise. You can also find this in our past interps thread.

SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4-43-3a; 9-4)

I choose to agree with those that say this is not a violation. If you intentionally allow the ball to drop, as stated in this play, you didn't fumble it.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... because that player traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor?

A fumble is not a dribble.

4.15 COMMENT:

It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble. A player is not dribbling while slapping the ball during a jump, when a pass rebounds from his/her hand, when he/she fumbles, or when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it. The player is not in control under these conditions. It is a dribble when a player stands still and bounces the ball. It is not a dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I choose to agree with those that say this is not a violation. If you intentionally allow the ball to drop, as stated in this play, you didn't fumble it.




A fumble is not a dribble.

4.15 COMMENT:

It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble. A player is not dribbling while slapping the ball during a jump, when a pass rebounds from his/her hand, when he/she fumbles, or when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it. The player is not in control under these conditions. It is a dribble when a player stands still and bounces the ball. It is not a dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

The play says the player FUMBLES the ball. That word it not ambiguous at all. How did you get intentionally drops from FUMBLES?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by deecee

The play says the player FUMBLES the ball. That word it not ambiguous at all. How did you get intentionally drops from FUMBLES?

The play that Nevada cites, which has never made its way to a casebook, says the player "fumbles AND DROPS" the ball. The argument is that the player fumbled the ball, controlled it again AND dropped it. In order to "drop" something you have to have it. They could have simply said player "fumbles the ball and then goes and retrieves." They didn't. They said "and drops." Those 2 words mean something.

Frankly, as I said earlier, there isn't any logical reason to treat a fumble different when player goes up to shoot. I believe "accidental loss of player control" is what matters. If accident, let them retrieve it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

The play says the player FUMBLES the ball. That word it not ambiguous at all. How did you get intentionally drops from FUMBLES?

I don't think he intended to say that. I believe he is saying that for it to be a travel, if you go by the rule, the player would have to intentionally release the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think he intended to say that. I believe he is saying that for it to be a travel, if you go by the rule, the player would have to intentionally release the ball.

That's what he was saying, and I don't see how his point was at all ambiguous.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The play that Nevada cites, which has never made its way to a casebook, says the player "fumbles AND DROPS" the ball. The argument is that the player fumbled the ball, controlled it again AND dropped it. In order to "drop" something you have to have it. They could have simply said player "fumbles the ball and then goes and retrieves." They didn't. They said "and drops." Those 2 words mean something.

Frankly, as I said earlier, there isn't any logical reason to treat a fumble different when player goes up to shoot. I believe "accidental loss of player control" is what matters. If accident, let them retrieve it.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think he intended to say that. I believe he is saying that for it to be a travel, if you go by the rule, the player would have to intentionally release the ball.

Originally Posted by Adam

That's what he was saying, and I don't see how his point was at all ambiguous.

Thank you gentlemen.