Travelling & lane violation

[Rock]

2 questions...thanks..

Two players from the same team both come down with a rebound, player B releases the ball without moving, player A jumps without stepping and shoots the ball, is this a travel because two players from the same team had possesion of the ball?

A player lines up in the last block of the freethrow lane prior to the referee giving the shooter the ball. Under the new UIL? rule the player is not allowed to occupy that last block. When the ball is shot and missed the referee whistle's a lane violation for the player lining up in the wrong block. Is this the referee's responsibility to align the players prior to the free throw, or just a courtesy type of deal, and is it really a violation to occupy the wrong block on a freethrow?

Thank you

[Adam]

Originally posted by Rock
2 questions...thanks..

Two players from the same team both come down with a rebound, player B releases the ball without moving, player A jumps without stepping and shoots the ball, is this a travel because two players from the same team had possesion of the ball?

One question at a time.
I'm not aware of a rule that says two players can't hold the ball at the same time. It's a handoff. No call.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Rock
2 questions...thanks..

A player lines up in the last block of the freethrow lane prior to the referee giving the shooter the ball. Under the new UIL? rule the player is not allowed to occupy that last block. When the ball is shot and missed the referee whistle's a lane violation for the player lining up in the wrong block. Is this the referee's responsibility to align the players prior to the free throw, or just a courtesy type of deal, and is it really a violation to occupy the wrong block on a freethrow?

It's a courtesy. Yes, it's a violation, and it's ultimately the players' responsibility to line up correctly. We don't like to call this, so we will try to catch it before the shot. But if we don't, it's a violation. Kind of like 6 players on the court. We don't like to call it, and do our best to avoid it. But if we miss it, it's the coaches' responsibility.

aw

[Rock]

thank you

[Fifth And Goal]

A1 and A2 rip down a defensive rebound and have joint posesssion. A1 then moves one foot, while keeping the other still. A2 never moves, but both players are still holding the ball. Travel?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Fifth And Goal
A1 and A2 rip down a defensive rebound and have joint posesssion. A1 then moves one foot, while keeping the other still. A2 never moves, but both players are still holding the ball. Travel?

Who knows? Did A1 move his pivot foot, or the other foot?

[footlocker]

no, I think that is a case book though. I can't remember and can't look it up. MTD, I know you can.

[Jurassic Referee]

The case book play, if I remember right, has the 2 players landing on both feet simultaneously. That means that neither has established a pivot foot yet, and therefore can move either foot legally. Fifth & Goal's post didn't specify that, so you can't tell if it's a travel without the further information.

[Fifth And Goal]

I meant that both players land on 2 feet simultaneously. A1, thinking that A2 is an opponent, moves 1 foot back while still holding the ball in an effort to rip it away. A1 and A2 maintain joint possession of the ball, and A2 never moves. Travel?

I say no, because A1's set foot and A2's feet are collectively the "pivot foot." So long as A2 never moves either foot, then we play on.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Fifth And Goal
I meant that both players land on 2 feet simultaneously. A1, thinking that A2 is an opponent, moves 1 foot back while still holding the ball in an effort to rip it away. A1 and A2 maintain joint possession of the ball, and A2 never moves. Travel?

I say no, because A1's set foot and A2's feet are collectively the "pivot foot." So long as A2 never moves either foot, then we play on.

Right call, wrong reasoning.

As long as *neither* player travels, the play is legal. If *either* travels, it's travelling.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Fifth And Goal
I meant that both players land on 2 feet simultaneously. A1, thinking that A2 is an opponent, moves 1 foot back while still holding the ball in an effort to rip it away. A1 and A2 maintain joint possession of the ball, and A2 never moves. Travel?

I say no, because A1's set foot and A2's feet are collectively the "pivot foot." So long as A2 never moves either foot, then we play on.

No, they don't "collectively" have a pivot foot. Both players each have a pivot foot in this case, but neither player has established their pivot foot yet, so each player can legally move one foot. If either player moves a pivot foot illegally after they had established their pivot foot, you have a violation on that player.

Case book play 4.43.2SitB- I looked it up this time.

[Fifth And Goal]

Thanks, guys. That's why I read this forum.

I think this is one of those calls where "I know it when I see it," but I have to stop and think about the rationale.

BTW, I had this very situation in a jr. high girls rec game a couple weeks back. My partner and I made an over/under guess on the number of jump balls during one game. The final score? 19 tied balls in 24 minutes of basketball. Not including the joint possession rebound. Ay carumba.

[Edited by Fifth And Goal on Feb 25th, 2004 at 04:03 PM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

No, they don't "collectively" have a pivot foot.

I don't know, JR, I kind of like this reasoning. We in America are too individualistic, don't you think? A collective pivot foot might be just the thing we need to encourage team work and cooperation!