Travel, block, or nada?

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Raymond

What would be the basis for a travel?

Reread the OP. He lifted his pivot and put it down before releasing the pass. So unless there is a foul, it's a travel.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Reread the OP. He lifted his pivot and put it down before releasing the pass. So unless there is a foul, it's a travel.

That's unclear in the OP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

That's unclear in the OP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I thought it was clear but can see how you might read it otherwise...

A-1 manages to get his non-pivot foot over B-2, and just as A-1 gets his pivot foot over B-2 and setting it down, he releases a successful pass to A-3.

I read that to say the pivot foot was down, just barely, then the pass was released.

[bainsey]

I appreciate the thoughts. This happened last night, and I went with option C, played it on.

My thought process: It could not be a travel (despite what Coach B wanted at that moment). The interpretation I understand is someone lying on the floor is not entitled to that spot, so any contact that causes what would be a travel would have to be a foul. However, since A-1 got a clean pass upcourt to a teammate, I felt it best to pass on the contact.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I appreciate the thoughts. This happened last night, and I went with option C, played it on.

My thought process: It could not be a travel (despite what Coach B wanted at that moment). The interpretation I understand is someone lying on the floor is not entitled to that spot, so any contact that causes what would be a travel would have to be a foul. However, since A-1 got a clean pass upcourt to a teammate, I felt it best to pass on the contact.

As you now know...that interpretation is incorrect for a HS game but correct for a college game.

[LRZ]

I don't want to raise again the question of old interpretations, but is that 2004-2005 case the only authority for this?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I don't want to raise again the question of old interpretations, but is that 2004-2005 case the only authority for this?

2004-05 Casebook: 10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

Has there been a rule change since 2004-05 that would invalidate this interpretation? How about any citations in existing rules, or caseplays, that would invalidate this interpretation?

There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping.

If it's not illegal, it's legal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I was simply asking if there was anything new that I might have overlooked.

It's not new, but ...

4-23-1: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.