Rules of Pivoting

[ysong]

just some follow up whinings after lossing a debate. not intended to start a new debate.

A rule is expected to be followed, not expected to be broken and without penalty.

But how many players do the "stepping" instead of jumping when they "run" the layups? except during pre-game warmups.

I'd like to say too often (if not always) the runing layups are done by jump-jump. But no one, even the coaches, really complains about them.

If a rule is not repected by players, coaches and refs, 80% of the time, does it still have a reason to exist?

Its existance only creates inconsitency. So how do you draw a line here, between an ok jump-jump and a not-ok jump-jump? each ref may have a different creterion.

Without this rule, it may make the game more enjoyable. after catching the ball when runing, the player will be allowed to drastically change his/hers direction and "jump" away from the defender to take shot. Without this rule, the basketball will be more basketball. people legalized the jump shot for the same reason, right?

Are there anybody else who hate this rule too?

thanks.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by ysong
But how many players do the "stepping" instead of jumping when they "run" the layups? except during pre-game warmups.

I'm pretty sure that when establish a pivot foot while moving (like when taking a lay-up), there's no difference between a jump and a step (4-43-2). Also, it's JMO, but I see more travels during pre-game lay-up lines, than I do on lay-ups during the game.

I'd like to say too often (if not always) the runing layups are done by jump-jump.

I'm not sure what kind of games you're working, but that just isn't the case around here. The jump stop is pretty rare around here (I'd guesstimate 5%-10% of all drives to the basketin boys' games), especially compared to regular lay-ups.

So how do you draw a line here, between an ok jump-jump and a not-ok jump-jump? each ref may have a different creterion.

That's not the fault of the rule; that's inconsistency in application. An ok jump-stop occurs when a player:

1) catches the ball in the air;
2) lands on one foot;
3) jumps off that foot; and
4) lands simulaneously on both feet ( 4-43-2a(3) ).

Officials tend to be lax in applying the "simultaneously" standard. But that doesn't mean that what the rule states is somehow unclear.

Without this rule, it may make the game more enjoyable. after catching the ball when runing, the player will be allowed to drastically change his/hers direction and "jump" away from the defender to take shot. Without this rule, the basketball will be more basketball. people legalized the jump shot for the same reason, right?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at. How will removing a rule allow a player to change direction drastically? What rule is preventing that now? I just don't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry.

And I'm already on record as saying that I dislike the jump-stop. I think it's clearly a travel, since the player leaves the floor with the ball and returns to the floor with the ball. However, I understand that it's legal b/c of the very specific language describing how the pivot is established. Since there's no pivot when the player leaves the floor (after jumping off one foot), it's not a travel when he comes back down (since the pivot hasn't been lifted and returned). Bad rule, IMO, but that's the way it is.

[ysong]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I'm pretty sure that when establish a pivot foot while moving (like when taking a lay-up), there's no difference between a jump and a step (4-43-2).

This is very important to me. I have to make it very clear.

in 4-43-2:

"ART. 2 . . . A player, who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop, and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. If both feet are off the floor and the player lands:
...
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch is the pivot."

I thought it described a "step". but you are saying it can be a "jump" too.

So, after catching the ball in mid air, a player can land with one foot and jump right off it, then land on the other foot and jump off it again to shoot. you believe it is perfectly legal. Do I understand you correctly?

Thanks.

[SeanFitzRef]

This is very important to me. I have to make it very clear.

in 4-43-2:

"ART. 2 . . . A player, who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop, and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. If both feet are off the floor and the player lands:
...
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch is the pivot."

I thought it described a "step". but you are saying it can be a "jump" too.

So, after catching the ball in mid air, a player can land with one foot and jump right off it, then land on the other foot and jump off it again to shoot. you believe it is perfectly legal. Do I understand you correctly?

Thanks.



[/B]

Had a play this weekend, kid catches a pass on the wing, near the three point line with his left foot on the floor, takes two running steps (right, left) into the paint and passes to a teammate on the other side of the basket. I call a travel, and the coach wants to argue. I simply ask the coach "how many times did the kid dribble before he passed the ball?" He left it alone after that.
It wasn't a travel until the left foot hit again, if my interpretation of the rule is correct. It doesn't have to be this big ginormous step to be a travel. (yes, I used a made up word for emphasis)

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by ysong
So, after catching the ball in mid air, a player can land with one foot and jump right off it, then land on the other foot and jump off it again to shoot. you believe it is perfectly legal. Do I understand you correctly?

You understand me perfectly. What you describe is a perfectly legal lay-up.

[ysong]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

You understand me perfectly. What you describe is a perfectly legal lay-up.

Thanks, Chuck.

Please don't change your mind when you find out you are up against Camron Rust and Jurassic Referree (and maybe rainmaker).

BTW, when I said "too often (if not always) the runing layups are done by jump-jump.", I was talking about the regular layups that you just vindicated, not "jump stops".

Thanks.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The player landed on the "red" foot first. That's now his pivot foot. He then lifted that foot to jump onto his other "green"(non-pivot) foot, and then jumped off the non-pivot (green) foot and shot before the pivot (red) foot hit the floor again.

Isn't there some rule about having different color feet?

Oh, wait - not if you're doing girls...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
[/B]

Isn't there some rule about having different color feet?

Oh, wait - not if you're doing girls...

[/B][/QUOTE]Care to issue a case play on that one?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree with Chuck..

Come on, JR, don't be mean to the poor kid by agreeing!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I agree with Chuck.

That's good, but. . .

The player landed on the "red" foot first. That's now his pivot foot.

Not quite. The red foot is not the pivot foot until the green foot hits.

Technicality, I know. But it's the whole reason that the jump-stop is legal; so I think it's important to understand.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

That's good, but. . .

Not quite. The red foot is not the pivot foot until the green foot hits.

Technicality, I know. But it's the whole reason that the jump-stop is legal; so I think it's important to understand.

OK, I don't agree with Chuck.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree with Chuck. The player landed on the "red" foot first. That's now his pivot foot. He then lifted that foot to jump onto his other "green"(non-pivot) foot, and then jumped off the non-pivot (green) foot and shot before the pivot (red) foot hit the floor again.

That's perfectly legal. The player established a pivot foot(red), jumped off of that pivot foot and shot before the pivot foot hit the floor again.

You mean to tell me that if a player, after having caught the ball by the basket, first lands on the "red" foot right, jumps 2-3 feet straight up (as if to shoot but realizes B will block it), then lands in essentially the same spot on the "green" foot, you're going to allow it?

The traveling rule lists what is permitted when a player first lands on one foot:

Step to other foot

Jump to both feet simultaneously

I don't see jump to one foot. Since it is listing what is allowed, anything else is not allowed.

If they're "stepping" as in a layup and both feet are momentarily off the ground, that is fine, but a step is not the same as a jump.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
OK, I don't agree with Chuck.

I feel better now.

[Jurassic Referee]

I also deleted my answer above. Please disregard everything else I may have written in this thread.

Life's too short.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
You mean to tell me that if a player, after having caught the ball by the basket, first lands on the "red" foot right, jumps 2-3 feet straight up (as if to shoot but realizes B will block it), then lands in essentially the same spot on the "green" foot, you're going to allow it?

Honestly, I did not envision a play the way you're describing it.

If they're "stepping" as in a layup and both feet are momentarily off the ground, that is fine, but a step is not the same as a jump.

How are you going to adjudicate that? How are you going to tell a coach, "No, coach, his pivot never came down. But it's a travel anyway"? How are we to distinguish between a step when both feet are momentarily off the ground and a jump when both feet are momentarily off the ground?

By the height of the step?
By the direction of the step?
By the intent of the stepper?

I just don't see how you're supposed to split that hair. If the pivot foot does not come down, then it's not a travel, IMHO.