Fun With Up And Down ...
 

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...np1IPHkf5s.mp4

IAABO only give two choices: travel, or legal.

Travel.

Blocked Shot ...
 

My initial comment: Travel. Pivot foot was lifted and then returned to the floor.

Certainly looked like the ancient old fashioned "up and down" call.

I believe that I was incorrect in my initial ruling.

Looked at it again and saw that the shot was blocked (missed that the first time through). So legal. Play on.

From the Misunderstood Rules list:

The shooter can retrieve one’s own airball, if the official considers it to be a shot attempt. The release ends both player control and team control. It is not a violation for that player to start another dribble at that point. When an airborne player keeps control of an attempted shot that is blocked, is unable to release the ball, and returns to the floor with it, that player has not traveled; it is a held ball. If, in a similar situation, the defender simply touches the ball, the airborne shooter maintains control of the ball, chooses not to release the ball, and returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation. If, in a similar situation, the shooter loses control of the ball because of the block, then this is simply a blocked shot, the release ends team control. It is not a violation for that player to start another dribble at that point. When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and touches the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.

The legality of this play under NFHS rules depends upon whether or not a defender dislodged the ball. If a defensive player knocked the ball out of the offensive player’s hands he may catch it in midair and return to the floor without penalty. However, if the ball simply slips from his grasp after he has become airborne, he may not regain control in the air and return to the floor as that is a traveling violation.
Note: NCAAM rules differently on the second part. Recently, that level issued an interpretation which deems this action legal. The old NFHS ruling of a travel can be found in this forum’s past Interps archive.

Nevadaref Is The King Of Interpretations ...
 

Are My Eyes Deceiving Me ???
 

Which is exactly what I thought that I saw the first time through the video. I was wrong.

I only watched the play once and didn't notice if the ball was dislodged by the defender. If it was then I retract my earlier ruling.

It was. On first viewing, I was thinking travel. It appeared to me that it was likely that something happened to cause him to lose control but it took a few replays for me to see when and where it occurred.

New signal?
 

I would have enjoyed seeing this video go another 10-15 seconds. The coach is on his way to talk with T about why the no call, and I did not see ANY of the 3 officials give any signal that they saw (or didn't see...?) what happened. It would have been interested to see how the trail handled it and how easily the coach was pacified.

In a situation like this, if I see it, I will give a signal that does not look unlike trying to juggle a few imaginary balls. Often as an official, I try to remember we may be the only link between what actually happened on the floor and what the fans/coaches may have seen.

For the record, I agree with the no call, per the discussion indicates.

Mom: "Because I Said So" ...
 

Note: My comments and questions below are not based on this actual video play where the ball was blocked by an opponent, but rather on the annual interpretation cited by Nevadaref (and what some of us wanted to call an "up and down" violation).

While the annual interpretation is very clear that this (ball slips from grasp while airborne) is a violation, I question why?

4-44-3: After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
b. If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

Is this not a try for goal?

4-41: ART. 2 A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player’s hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.
ART. 3 The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.

4-21: A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player’s grasp.

If indeed this is a try for goal (even with the fumble), the ball was released, thus allowing the player to regain possession, even allowing the player to start a new dribble if he had already dribbled.

A shooter is allowed to retrieve his own airball if the official considers it to be a shot attempt.

Stupid NFHS ...
 

Perhaps all three officials were unaware of the twenty-year old annual interpretation, believing this to be a try for goal, allowing the shooter to retrieve his own airball.

Imagine three officials, possibly all with nineteen years experience or less, not knowing this single year interpretation from twenty years ago.

My pet peeve. Stupid NFHS.

Or all three saw the blocked shot and ruled correctly.

A fumble is a fumble, it is not releasing the ball for a try or a pass.

If it were the same as releasing for a try, then if A2 fouled B2 while the ball was airborne during the fumble, you have to allow B2 to shoot bonus free throws.

Release For a Try ...
 

Thanks Raymond. Great point.

So even if one were to consider this to be a throwing for goal, or a throwing for goal attempt, it's not the try itself, but it's only the actual release of the ball for a try, not a fumbling of a try (the release of a fumble), that allows the shooter to retrieve one's own airball.

The rule doesn't say: If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a fumble.

I see your point but I also see the real need for this annual interpretation to simplify and clarify such. Too bad the NFHS didn't consider this annual interpretation important enough to permanently be in the casebook.

Perhaps the officials gave no signal because there was none to give. In many areas, non-approved signals are discouraged and veteran officials often emphasize during camps or pre-season scrimmages, "If you have nothing, signal nothing."

That would not be the best signal as “the juggle” signal merely indicates a momentary loss of control or a lack of control during an initial catch attempt. In this case that would still mean that the play is a traveling violation.
If you wish into indicate that this play was legal, then you should use the “defensive tip” signal which the NFHS just put in for backcourt situations. That would communicate to everyone that you saw a touch by the defense which caused the loss of control.

That's a great point, and you are correct!

+1!

IAABO International Play Commentary …
 

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...np1IPHkf5s.mp4

Disclaimer: For IAABO Eyes Only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a legal play.

Blue #4 catches the ball in the lane and establishes his left foot as the pivot foot before jumping to attempt a try. After establishing a pivot foot, the pivot foot may be lifted but not returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal. (4-44-3a)

In this play, Blue #4 does lift the pivot foot and return to the floor with the ball before releasing the ball on a pass or try. However, while Blue #4 is airborne, White #22 makes contact with the ball, causing Blue #4 to momentarily lose control of the ball. Blue #4, while airborne, regains control and returns to the floor with the ball.

This is a legal play. Because the defender caused the shooter to lose control, it is legal for Blue #4 to regain control, return to the floor with the ball and establish a pivot foot. (4-44-2a) In this play, Blue #4 landed simultaneously on both feet and once again established the left foot as the pivot foot when he stepped with the right foot to make a move to the basket and attempt another try.

For further study on these types of plays, please refer to casebook 4.44.3 Situation A:

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.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video (only two choices): Travel 53% (including me); Legal 47%.

Looks like a travel, but could have been knocked slightly out of his hand. Hard to see as there is no clear view.

Peace

Updated Correction To IAABO International Play Commentary …
 

For IAABO Eyes Only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...np1IPHkf5s.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Updated correction. We have updated this play to be a traveling violation. The initial teaching point of this play is the legal recovery of the ball by the airborne player.

However, We should have mentioned; the player does commit a traveling violation after returning to the floor and making a move to the basket to attempt a try. Upon returning to the floor with the ball, he establishes the left foot as the pivot foot. He “spins” toward the basket lifting the left foot and placing it back to the floor before attempting the try. This is a traveling violation.

Ahh, yes. The proverbial “spin move” discussion. Almost always a travel, but in real time difficult to say precisely when the dribble ended vis-à-vis foot position, so often not called.

Although he actually also travelled by moving his pivot foot slightly before he released on his dribble. [emoji33]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to clarify. Player A1 stops the dribble, looks around, is getting some intense pressure. Tosses the ball up at random. Ball hits the floor and bounces back up to him. I understand you cant start a dribble without your pivot foot on the ground.

Your understanding is (mostly) correct, but nowhere in your description did you indicate that A1 lifted the pivot foot.

Illegal (Double) Dribble ...
 

Jqb12's situation, as described, seems more like an illegal (double) dribble violation than a travel violation. He may be intermingling the two violations, or is not giving us enough information, or is giving us too much information.

9-5 Illegal Dibble: A player must not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he/she has lost control because of: A try for field goal. A touch by an opponent. A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player.

4-44 Traveling: After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot: The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released to start a dribble. After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot: Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.

Words Count ...
 

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.j...=0&w=281&h=168

Be careful here. Jqb12's wording is slightly flip-flopped. Parts of the travel rule assume that a pivot has been established and one has started a dribble with one or both feet on the ground.

In some odd situations one can legally start a dribble before a pivot foot is established. Player jumps into the air and grabs a rebound. While still airborne said player pushes the ball to the floor to legally start dribbling.

Better for Jqb12 to stick to the rulebook language: The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released to start a dribble.

The girl picked up her dribble. Didn't know what to do with the ball. She just tossed it in the air? The ball bounces a few feet from her and then she picked it up. What do we have?

Pass ??? Try??? Dribble??? ...
 

Illegal dribble.

While the toss into the air could have been a pass (or maybe even a try), once it was determined that it wasn't a try, wasn't touched by an opponent, or wasn't a pass or fumble touched by another player; her toss hitting the floor and her subsequently touching it became a second illegal (double) dribble.

9-5 Illegal Dibble: A player must not dribble a second time after her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he/she has lost control because of: A try for field goal. A touch by an opponent. A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player.

Nothing ??? Nothing ??? Travel ??? ...
 

In addition to the illegal dribble play (above):

If she tossed the ball into the air and never (relatively speaking) touched it again (assume it's the start of a bounce pass to God knows where), we've got nothing. Play on.

If she tossed the ball to the air, didn't move her feet, ball didn't touch the floor, and she caught the ball, we've got nothing. Play on.

4.44.3 Situation C: A1 tosses the ball from one hand to the other while keeping her pivot foot in contact with the floor. Ruling: Legal.

If she tossed the ball to the air, moved her pivot foot, ball didn't touch the floor, and she subsequently caught ball, we've got a traveling violation.

4.44.3 Situation C: A1 throws the ball over the head of B1 and then takes several steps before catching it. Ruling: Traveling violation since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal.

4-44: Traveling is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

Fun play. Thanks Jqb12.

Never had that happen in that way before. My partner called traveling, then we just looked at each other, all 3 of us, like "what the hell was that"?
Now if the girl would've just caught a pass, stood there, and then "throws" the ball out there, it bounces, and then she picks it up, is that "throw" considered the start of a dribble then?

Yes.

One Bounce Dribble ...
 

Depends on what the meaning of "throw" is?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.p...=0&w=294&h=166

Unless she lifted her pivot foot before she released ("throw") the ball to start her dribble, this sounds like a legal play (nothing more than a one bounce dribble).

If she had lifted her pivot foot before she released the ball, and if it ("throw") turned out be a pass, or a try; that also legal.

If it was deemed a try, it's legal, she gets a "fresh start", and can legally start a dribble if she wants to.

If it was deemed a pass (remember, she lifted her pivot foot before she released the ball), then she subsequently picks up the bounced ball (assuming it wasn't fumbled), the ball being untouched by anyone else, that's an odd illegal "self-bounce-pass" (that really, by rule language, can't exist), and it would be considered a traveling violation (even if no steps were taken, it's the premature lifting of the pivot foot that makes it a travel).

Always Listen To bob ...
 

I like bob jenkins' answer better than my answer.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.a...=0&w=219&h=173

What The Hell Was That ???
 

Close. In its simplest form, most likely an illegal (double) dribble.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.I...=0&w=300&h=300