I was at an NCAA Division I game last weekend (Chicago St Vs. UMKC) when one of our UMKC players went up for a rebound and the ball kicked back further than anticipated which resulted in both the UMKC and Chicago State players falling back a bit in an attempt to grab the rebound. Our player fell back as he was coming down with the ball and landed on his back. The ref called him for traveling. In most of the rule books I have read, as long as the player doesn't try to get up or improve his position by sliding, which he didn't, it isn't a traveling violation. Was this the proper call? There was contact between the two players as they were coming down and this, I felt, led the UMKC player to fall on his back. Does contact here make any difference?

Welcome to the forum. :)
The NCAA rules are available online at http://www.ncaa.org Here is what you need to know:

BR-90 RULE 4-66/DEFINITIONS

A.R. 38. Is it traveling when a player (a) falls to the playing court while holding the ball; or (b) gains control of the ball while on the playing court and then, because of momentum, rolls or slides, after which the player passes or starts a dribble before getting to his or her feet?
RULING: In (a), yes, because it is virtually impossible not to move the pivot foot when falling to the playing floor. In (b), no. The player may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a timeout. Once the player has the ball and is no longer sliding, he or she may not roll over.
When flat on his or her back, the player may sit up without violating. When the player puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is the first to touch the ball, it also is traveling. When a player rises to his or her feet while holding the ball, it is traveling. When a player falls to one knee while holding the ball, it is traveling if the pivot foot moves.

Joefan99 wanted to know if it is traveling if the player rebounding the ball fell to the floor on his back before his feet hit the floor and would incidental contact from the opposing team make any difference in the call. The above ruling does not address his question.

If the player caught the ball while on his feet (or a foot), and proceeded to fall to the floor while holding the ball; it's traveling. As for contact. A no-call on the contact could mean a couple of things.

1. The official didn't think it caused the player to fall.
2. The official judged that neither player had an advantageous position or that the player with the ball had initiated the contact.

The AR doesn't say that the player who fell to the floor was standing with his feet on the floor, only that he was holding the ball. Of course, the ruling certainly implies that his feet were on the floor otherwise he wouldn't have to worry about moving a pivot foot. Good point, Willie. I didn't think of it the way you did.

I know that NFHS has a case play that says it is traveling to catch a pass in the air and then fall when coming down. However, Joe asked about an NCAA game so I tried to stick strictly with NCAA rules. Maybe this situation isn't specifically addressed.

First, I'm not sure that's what he wanted to know. Nowhere in Joe's post does it say that the rebounder's back touched the ground before his feet.

Secondly, the point is irrelevant. The NCAA ruling is pretty clear. It's a violation to fall to the ground while holding the ball. Did the rebounder fall to the ground? Yes, whether his feet touched first or not. Was he holding the ball? Yes. Therefore, travel.

Thirdly, Snaqwell nailed the part about the contact. Pretty obviously, the official on the floor felt that the contact did not contribute to the player's fall. Joe may have seen it differently, but the official simply disagreed.

The call is correct. It's traveling to fall to the floor while holding the ball. The contact makes no difference if the official doesn't consider it a foul. And from the way you describe it, I don't believe there was a foul. Incidental contact.

Chuck,

Then what is the difference between the A) and B) example then? A player gains control of the ball on the court and is allowed to roll or slide with the ball due to momentum, and it not be a traveling violation. However, you can't grab a ball in the air and fall back with the ball in your hands due to contact from a player in front of you and the momentum of reaching backward?

To me, the rule isn't clear for the situation. If the player had difficulty coming down and landing of his feet due to being crowded by the player in front of him, then it shouldn't be a traveling violation. The player behind has a much right to the ball as the player in front, and if the guy fell back into him, wouldn't that be a violation of his vertical plain?

Joe,
Obviously, the official didn't think the contact was both a) illegal and b) the cause of the travel. That would have been a foul. In the official's judgment, the contact was most likely incidental.
The travel rule is pretty cut and dried here. You cannot fall to the floor while holding a ball. If you don't like the rule, take it up with the rules committee rather than the official.

Read it this way Joe:

A player while on the ground who then controls (holds) the ball may slide due to momentum...blah blah

A player who falls to the floor while holding (not dribbling) the ball has travelled.

As for the contact involved, there is such a thing as incidental contact. Obviously the refs workng the game decided neither player made illegal contact (or maybe they blew the call? ;) ).

For what it is worth, here is a website that has the 10 most commonly misunderstood basketball rules.

It states under 5) Traveling:

"A player who falls to the floor with the ball has not traveled unless they get up."

See:
http://www.thegym-il.com/pages/10_mo...traveling'

FYI, that site is wrong on #2, #5, #7, #9A (almost right). So, that site is only 60% right on the most misunderstood rules. I guess that's why they're the most misunderstood.

.
Our player fell back as he was coming down with the ball and <b>landed on his back.</b> FTR.

Guess it's not worth much. :)

And it doesn't include "over the back" and the grammar is terrible!