Incorrect. #1 is a travel. #2 may be but your example was incomplete.

If the left is the pivot and the player jumps off of the left foot. Then, then next foot down is a travel. The ONLY time a player can jump and land legally is when they've not established the pivot foot at all. And then, they must come down with both feet together.

It depends on whether the action is a jump or a step. A player with the left foot as the pivot can only step with the right foot. But once they jump, they can't land without traveling.

If in B, the player jumps from foot #1, it is a travel when they land unless they land on both feet simultaneously. If they're stepping (as is normally the case) they haven't jumped and therefore it would be legal for foot 2 to come down.

C is the same as B.

D is a travel unless foot #1 and foot #2 come back to the floor tegether.

The travling rule prescribes what is allowed. Jumping and landing on one foot is never allowed.

If you catch the ball in the air and touch the ground with your left foot, the left foot is NOT the pivot foot at that point. It only becomes the pivot if/when the right foot touches the ground.

This may seem like a small point. But if the left foot became the pivot when it touched the ground, then the jump-stop would not be legal. The whole reason that the jump-stop is legal is that no pivot foot has been established when the player jumps off that one foot.

Actually, I haven't weighed in on C before now.

Under NCAA rules, here are the legal actions when you catch the ball with both feet off the ground:

4-66. Art. 3. A player who catches the ball while moving or dribbling may stop and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. When both feet are off the playing court and the player lands:
1. Simultaneously on both feet, either may be the pivot foot;
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch shall be the pivot foot;
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both; neither foot can be the pivot foot.

It seems that your situation C falls under 4-66.3.a.2, so it's legal. Note that your sitation D doesn't fall under any of these, which is why it's not legal.

I believe 3.a.2 describes a "step", i,e, both feet touch the floor when the 2nd foot lands. It is not a jump.

But in C, it is a jump. so C does not fit 3.a.2.

I think the closest one is 3.a.3. When it says both feet MAY (not MUST) land simultaneously, it does not forbid landing with one foot only. (but the other foot can not land after that.)

If this theory is true, then both C and D are legal.

Thanks.

The key word there in that last sentence is "theory." Folks are telling you what's legal, and what's not. The books aren't written in the best possible way, so when people like Mick and Camron and Chuck who have years and years of experience being rules interpreters, and trainers, and teachers tell you that this one is legal and that one isn't, you need to listen to them, not try to read your own interp into the book wording. If your association interprets travelling differently than folks on this board do, then go talk to your assoc people, but don't argue here with people who know what they're talking about.

Seriously, why "Jurassic Referee" is not in above list?



[Edited by ysong on May 13th, 2005 at 11:03 PM]

Seriously, I just took the first three names I saw on this page and typed them in. I didn't look through the entire thread. It wasn't an Exhaustive Guide to Definitive Authority on the Discussion Board. It was a point that you should listen more and chatter less.

Seriously, I believe your name should be on it too.

Do you know what my problem is? there is <U>hardly</U> any time all of you people agree on one thing. (Except, perhaps, NBA game sucks but their officials are great.)

Agreed...just going by the case as presented. He stated the player had the left foot as the pivot.

In any case (not addressed to you Chuck), the only way a player can jump and land is if they jump off one without the other having touched and then land on both together. The rule specifies what is permitted...landing on both feet simultansously.

If someone posted a list of knowledgeable people who post on this board, ysong, the list would probably be close to or in 3 figures. There are that many sharp, helpful people that come here. Some may not post that often, but when they do, you are aware that they know what they're talking about. Seriously.

So, keep listening, keep not-talking. The one thing we ALL say is you have to fit in with your own circumstances. There are usually at least three or four interpretations or opinions on any given subject. Find out what the accepted one is in your area and use it. Don't argue. Don't make a scene. Do it the way you are told, by your own assignor. The arguing and the personal interps are never helpful to you. Listen more, talk less.

"Listen more, talk less.", "less talking, please", "shut up!", "Lord, please help us! Keep him quiet."

It's still a mystery to me why this sequence just keeps repeating itself. Does this happen to anybody else too, seriously?

Ok, I will listen this time. But please, you people keep talking.

Unless you people want me leave this topic and believe half of the layups I'll see are travels (techniaclly speaking), please give me a firm conclusion that you people agree upon. Especially Mick please, somehow you made me believe B and C were ok with you.

I watched Mavs vs Sun game 3, the second quater. Quit a few layups there.(I know, that is smart, using NBA examples to show my point. But it happened to be handy.)

Anyway, there were at least 4-5 layups that were shown with good angel on TV. In normal speed, I could not tell their first beat were steps or jumps. What I could tell were that these layups were done while players were <U>running</U>.

But in slow motion, among the 4-5 layups, at least 3 of them were jump-jump. (2 by Dirk Nowitzki and 1 by someone else). the rest of layups were unclear from the video. In fairness, their first jumps were just the natural running strides, not those verticals ones like their 2nd jumps.

So if both B and C are technically illegal, what are your recommendations for this? ignore those unless they are way too obvious?

Thanks.

All the answers to all these questions (except the part about something we all agree on) are already in this post. Read back over what people (especially Mick) wrote. Think about it with an open mind (that means feeling free to not use the NBA as an example). Or sit down with a tape of a local game and a local mentor or assignor and go over some plays there. Those are the only answers that really matter, anyway.

It sounds to me you need to see more plays and make calls based on what you see. You are really trying to think way too much about this topic. That is really the point I think Juulie is trying to make. You are trying to debate everyone instead of just calling what you understand. You need to watch other officials work and see what they are calling. It is really not a complicated as you think it is. The rules are relatively simple. You just have to see what the rules are describing.

Peace