My friends and I got into a discussion, and I have a question about pivoting, to which I have not found the answer on any websites or rule books...

Once the pivot foot is established, can they player pivot 360 degrees (all the way around, in a circle). Can the pivot foot even rotate? What is the rule on this. Anyone who knows for sure or has an idea please respond. What do you think?

As long as he keeps the pivot foot on the floor he can go round & round until he gets too dizzy to stand up & falls down.

And then you have a travel.

A player may pivot either direction as far and as many times as he or she wishes, as long as the pivot foot does not move along the floor (in other words, it stays in one spot on the floor).

:mad:

Caught short again, eh?

Wow! You must be have reffed my girls youth teams over the years because that's exaclty how they handle a double team! Pivot until they're dizzy, fall and then scrabble on the floor until a jump ball or travel is called. Thankfully it seems to subside with age and a little more skill.

Coach G

I have some questions about traveling too. I have searched some casebooks and almost all rulebooks, NCAA, FIBA, NBA, HS, you name it, but still can not find any rules that explicitly addree this move:

a player picked up his dribble and pivoted back and forth a couple times, then he tried to make a big step toward the basket. but because he wanted to cover a big distance with this step, instead of stepping (at least one foot on the floor at any given time), he in fact noticeably <U>jumpped off his pivot foot before his non-pivot foot touched the floor,</U> then he moved along and jumped off his non-pivot foot and made a basket, before his pivot foot ever touched the floor again.

So would you help me on this: which particular rule states or implies this "one jump with the ball" move is indeed illegal?

another similar move is during a "smooth looking" lay up: while moving, a player started the layup by picking up his dribble when his left (back) foot still touched the floor and before his right (front) foot landed. then his right foot down and he jumpped right off it, landed on left foot and jumpped off it, released the ball while in the air.

Technically, do you believe this player traveled even though the move looked very smooth? (regardless if you want to call the violation or not)

Thanks.

ok
 

part 2 is a travel -- but a player with the ball and pivot foot established can pick up that pivot foot and it not be a travel assuming he either (a) passes or (b) shoots the ball before that foot comes back down.

Thats how the good ol up and under works. As for picking up his pivot foot and jumping forward -- thats a travel -- you cannot jump and not pass or shoot unless its a legal jump stop which this is not.

Remember that the pivot foot can't slide. This goes for any time a dribble isn't in effect, such as on a shot or pass. If the pivot foot slides before the ball is released, it's a travel.

Re: ok
 

Thanks, Deecee.

In part 1, I know it is travel, but I really want to find the rules that state or imply so. Could you think of any rules that make this move illegal?

let me ask you this
 

if a player jumps with the ball and lands without shoointg, passing or a defender knocking the ball lose are gaining simultaneous possesion of the ball what would you call -- up and down or travel -- he essentially jumped and didn't get rid of the ball before he landed -- basic travel call.

In most games i go by a simple rule -- no matter how smooth the play went, unless the guy with the ball is just an amazing athlete, if he covers so much ground where i have to double take and ask myself is that possible -- there is a 99% chance it was a travel. Most players young and old just dont have the footwork to go about 15 - 20 feet off one dribble or a spinmove. or once he picks up his dribble take into account which foot is on the floor when he does that and if that foot gets picked up he better not have the ball when it gets put back down. The only time I would overlook that half step if the player is attacking the basket and he doesn't use that extra half step to gain an advantage by going around somebody -- but if hes going in a straight line to the basket i let it go.

then again im usually rather liberal with my travels -- it has to be clearly advantage gained or just a ridculously obvious travel for me to call it --

Which after i saw that video where the guy switched pivot and travelled again -- i would not have called that -- his defender gave him ample space to pivot and wasnt guarding him to tight so why interupt the game where the ball handler didnt get an advantage -- also he immediatly attacked the basket and did travel slightly again -- but it looked like a good matchup between defender and offender so let them play -- make the defense play defense and reward them. but then again when it comes to travelling im very liberal.

Re: let me ask you this
 

That's a bad rule, DC. Ask almost any assignor and they will tell you, don't guess. If you are not sure that it was a travel, then it wasn't. This will be particularly important as the players you officiate increase in skill level. Why? Because that move that you're sure an 8th-grader could never pull off is taught and practiced at the varsity level and is done legally in games.

Here's a better rule for you to follow: Identify the pivot foot on every possession.

you have a point
 

the games i have seen even the varsity ones have been very low skill so far -- which is why im trying to transition to coaching as i have reffed to many horrible high school games in too short a time -- i started reffing for fun and now after horrible game after horrible game it feels like a job -- i just hope i can land this jv gig in town.

then i guess ill be on the receiving end of the T rather than the administring side :)

Wel, you got a great future in the NBA ahead of you.

Could have a lot of problems in high school ball though.

lol
 

that's what both my mentors have told me --

Re: let me ask you this
 

Thanks for helping me on this, Deecee.

Do not get me wrong, I have no doubt that the move in part-1 is a travel. but where is the rule to back me up?

In your example, the travel call is well founded, because the rule says: he can lift his pivot foot but can not put it back to the floor before he gets rid of the ball.

but in my case, his pivot foot never returns to the floor until the ball is gone. So this rule does not fit this scenario. Actually, I believe none of the travel rules fits this scenario.

Again, I know it is a travel, but I really like to have a rule to back it up.

I asked this question before, a while ago in this forum. But no rules were given to me. I can not see why this case is so worthless to be listed in the traveling violations. (BTW, the rules even bother to say "a player can not run with the ball")

Thanks again, Deecee.

There are smooth plays that are travels, and there are ugly plays that aren't travels.

when it comes to rules
 

im not the best -- there are refs that are much better at knowing the rules than me -- im not the best for that -- i ref basketball and just try and make sure the game gets decided by the kids with as little involvment as possible.

Pivot foot is key for me
 

I try to make a mental note of the ball handler's pivot foot, when and where it was established. I see that foot come down again in another spot without a pass or shot, that's when I'm seeing the travel. I suppose a jump stop is sort of an exception to that, but jump stops are stupid anyhow. I don't know when that became a rule, or if it always was, but I think they're ridiculous and most kids think it's a license to travel. "WHAT?!?!? Why'd you call a travel, ref? It was a jump stop!!" Yeah, but you pivoted after the stop!

This is a legal play as long as the player jumps "cleanly" with the pivot foot; that is, as long as the player doesn't slide the pivot foot while jumping. In fact, something almost identical happens all the time during a layup---a player catches the ball in the air, one foot down, then the other, then the layup. If this happens while the player is in full stride, then the pivot foot (first one down) will leave the floor before the other foot touches the floor.

The question got me thinking, though. Let's leave out jump stops and the case where a player is starting a dribble. The rule says that "[a]fter coming to a stop and establishing the pivot foot ... [t]he pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the playing court, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal." Imagine a player who establishes his/her left foot as the pivot foot. After he/she lifts that foot, he/she hops once or twice on the right foot without the left foot touching the floor again, then passes or shoots. Since the pivot foot never touches the floor, it seems as though, by rule, no violation has occurred. Thoughts?

True, I see your point. It's semantic. The foot they are hopping on is not technically called their pivot foot, because that had previously been established. But you and I both know that if that foot leaves the ground and returns, there had bloody well better be a travel call.

thats ridiculous
 

thats just reading to much into a rule -- so when i coach my kids i will tell them hey bobby just lift your pivot foot and stand on the other foot and just hop down the court -- its not a traveling violation because your pivot foot hasnt been put back down...

When a player jumps, it is a travel for either foot (pivot or other) to return to the floor before the ball is release. The question to be asked is really "was it a jump or a step?" That is a judgement the official must make. In a layup, it is quite clearly a step. At the other end of the spectrum, a player jumping straight up is a jump. At some point in between, it changes from one to the other. I'd say it really depends on the "vector" of the movement...ie...was it more horizontal or more vertical?

Can you give me a rule that backs this up?

I'm not challenging the substance of your comment; I just want to understand how it follows from the rules.

[Edited by Lotto on May 13th, 2005 at 08:31 AM]

Re: thats ridiculous
 

Um, I don't see how this is "reading to[o] much" into a rule. If the rule says that something is legal, then it's legal. Now I agree with you that this hopping scenario "should" be a travel. However, the rule I cited seems to say explicitly that it's legal. How do we reconcile this?

NFHS rules 4-43-3(a)(b) & 4(a).

Ah, the key is 4-43-3(b).

There's no corresponding statement in the NCAA rulebook. Since that's what we use in NY for girl's HS ball, I don't know the Fed rules as well.

Anyone want to comment on the "hopping on the nonpivot foot" as far as NCAA rules are concerned?

Lotto,
Au contraire!
NCAA 4-66 describes what can be done.
Hopping is not described, thus hopping is illegal.
mick

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

NFHS rules 4-43-3(a)(b) & 4(a).

Unbelievable. I really convinced myself that I had completedly devoured the NFHS rulebook. But apparently I missed 4-43-3(b).

Thanks JR! You probably can't not imagine the relieved feeling I am having now. (but, why did you not tell me this last year? :) )

I hope you don't mind that I challenge your point here.

I believe there are 4 ways and only the following 4 ways to do a legal lay-up:

While moving, at the moment a player catches the ball, (either with one hand or with two hands, either from a pass or from a dribble),

A) one of his foot (foot #1) touches the floor, then foot #2 touches the floor, then foot #1 leaves the floor, then foot #2 leaves the floor, ball is gone, foot (feet) back to the floor. this is the step-jump-shoot sequence.

B)gets the ball when foot #1 on the floor, then foot #1 off the floor, foot #2 back to floor, foot #2 off the floor, ball gone, foot (feet) back to floor. this is the jump-jump-shoot sequence.

C)gets the ball when both feet off the floor, then foot #1 back to floor, foot #1 off the floor, foot #2 back to floor, foot #2 off the floor, ball gone, foot(feet) back to floor. This is the land-jump-jump-shoot sequence, with alternate "footings".

D)gets the ball when both feet off the floor, then foot #1 back to floor, foot #1 off the floor, foot #1 back to floor again(!), foot #1 off the floor, ball gone, foot (feet) back to the floor. this is the land-jump-jump-shoot sequence, with the same footing.

(if a player gets the ball while two feet on the floor, even when he is walking, then he is not allowed to do a lay-up. also there are no other ways to do "lay-ups")

I "claim" all the above 4 lay-ups are legal.

Do you think my claim is correct?

thanks.

I am wondering why NCAA neglects it too.

Thanks for letting me know I am not alone in this.

This is incorrect.

Also D is incorrect.

I'm not sure you caught this yet but from your original post part 1 is NOT a travel, as is described in later replies in the thread.

Part D is definitely a travel, as mick said, I'm wondering how this could actually happen, seems very awkward to me.

which one?

Quote:

Also D is incorrect.

I know D is a controversial one to say the least. To some, D may even seem ridiculous. But I will argue that, in essence, there is no difference between D and C.

To claim both C and D are legal, I uses NCAA 4-66-3(a-3):

a. When both feet are off the playing court and the player lands:
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and <U>simultaneously land on both</U>; neither foot can be the pivot foot.

and NCAA-66-5(a):

Art. 5. After coming to a stop when neither foot can be the pivot foot:
a. <U>One or both feet may be lifted</U>, but may not be returned to the playing court, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal;

So if a player is allowed to land with <U>both feet</U>, he is certainly allowed to land with one foot only, provided that the other foot does not do anything funny.

Also if a player is allowed to jump when <U>both feet</U> on the floor, he is certainly allowed to jump when one foot on the floor, provided that the other foot behaves.

the key here is "to simultaneously land on both feet" only prohibits "to land one foot after the other", does not prohibits "to land on one foot only" at all, as long as the other foot does not land until the ball is gone.

This is what I truely believe, D is just as legal as C. Also I believe it is well within basketball game principle, unlike my other "one jump with the ball after pivoting" scenairo.

(Actually I missed the 5th way of legal lay-ups: the land-step-jump-shoot sequence, which is very similar to C, only the player steps first before the jump and shot.)

Do I miss anything here?

Thanks.

I believe both cases in my original post are travel. For part 1, NFHS 4-43-3(b) indicates that. Maybe you read the post too quick or my English played a trick on you. :)

Part D is very awkward to many. but it is in the repertoire of few less skilled players who have not mastered the left-hand layups. when the player lands on the "wrong" foot after catching a pass, he has to hop on this foot again to jump off it, because this is his "favorite" foot for layups.

Thanks.

ysong,

C)gets the ball when both feet off the floor, then <B><font color = red>foot #1 back to floor</font>, <font color = green>foot #1 off the floor</font></B>, foot #2 back to floor, foot #2 off the floor, ball gone, foot(feet) back to floor. This is the land-jump-jump-shoot sequence, with alternate "footings".


D)gets the ball when both feet off the floor, then <B><Font color = red>foot #1 back to floor</font>, <Font color = green>foot #1 off the floor</font>, <Font color = red>foot #1 back to floor again</font></B><font color = blue>(!)</font></B>, foot #1 off the floor, ball gone, foot (feet) back to the floor. this is the land-jump-jump-shoot sequence, with the same footing.

Um, nope.
One red + one green does not equal two red + one green. ;)
mick

That is why I said "<U>in essence</U>" they were the same. :)

in stead of landing simultaneously on both feet, the player lands on one foot only, then jumps right off to shoot. In this regard, C and D are the same.

Actually, C is not listed in the "prescribed limit" in NCAA either, right? But no one really questions C's legitimacy.

So what makes C a legal move in NCAA? Why can't it apply to D also?

Thanks.

I don't have my rulebook with me and since I can't look the rules up on the internet I don't have anything to back myself up. But I am sure this act is legal:

A player has an established pivot, which your situation does, lifts the pivot foot (other foot on the floor or not), lands on the other foot (or other foot is already on the floor), jumps off the other foot and passes or shoots (dribbling in this situation is a violation).

Also think about a jump shot, how would your situation be a travel and a jump shot not? A jump shot has the same basic things happening, pivot foot leaving floor etc.

If we're describing a different situation please tell me, but from my interpretation it the same.

For part D, to me it seems a little different but the same rule would apply, but in this case the pivot foot was lifted and returned to the floor, disregarding whether or not the other foot touched the floor, would make part D a travel.

If I'm wrong, someone please tell me.

Thanks

NFHS 4-43-3(b) is:
. After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:
b. If the player jumps, <U>neither foot</U> may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

so in a jump shot, both feet are lifted, but Neither foot is returned to the floor until ball is gone. So jump shoot is perfectly legal.

But in the "part 1 move", at the moment when both feet are off the floor, it becomes a jump. when the non-pivot foot back down before the ball is gone, it directly violates the above rule.

Quote:

For part D, to me it seems a little different but the same rule would apply, but in this case the pivot foot was lifted and returned to the floor, disregarding whether or not the other foot touched the floor, would make part D a travel.

As I quoted in my previous post, NCAA 4-66 allows 2-beat jump stop while moving. on the second beat, the pivot foot does return to the floor, but it is still legal. It is an exception to the traditional wisdom "pivot foot can not back down".

Thanks.

OK, how about this:
2 on 1 break, A1 passes to A2 who catches the ball in midair, lands on left foot which is now the pivot, lifts (jumps, steps, leg falls off below the knee, etc.) left foot, right foot lands, jumps of right foot for a layup.

Legal

Same thing, 2 on 1 break, A1 passes to A2 who catches the ball with left foot already on floor. Same thing happens, lifts left foot, right foot lands, jumps of right, layup.

Legal

The same rule is applied to both situations, just a different situation which in fact the exact same thing happens.

I disagree with much of this. When I read "to simultaneously land on both feet," I read this as only covering the case where the player simultaneously lands on both feet. It does not (to my reading) say anything about a player landing on one foot. The key is the first provision of 4-66:

Art. 1.Traveling occurs when a player holding the ball moves a foot or both feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits described in this Rule.

situation D that you described above (basically a hop---a jump stop, but landing on one foot instead of both feet) is a travel.

Have a nice day. :)
mick

No doubt, both cases are legal.

As you can see, in both 2 cases, the player is moving when he catches the ball. In my "part 1 move", the player is not moving. this difference makes The 43-3(b) apply to my case but not yours. because 43-3(b) requires player "come to stop" first in order for this rule to apply.

Thanks.

I believe you have no problems with C, right? So what makes C a legal move? :)

Thanks.

With a quick look I couldn't locate rule 43-3(b) assuming you are referencing NCAA rules.

I did find rule 4-66, article 4(a) which is:
Art. 4. After coming to a stop and establishing the pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the playing court, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal

This would make your original part 1 legal. I will find something in the FED rule and case book this weekend and report back Monday.

I'm done, going home, here comes the weekend :)

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

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.

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'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.


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.

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.

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 <U>jump</U> right off it, then land on the <U>other foot</U> and jump off it again to shoot. you believe it is perfectly legal. Do I understand you correctly?

Thanks.

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)

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.

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

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

:D

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

Oh, wait - not if you're <b>doing</b> girls...

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

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

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.

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:
<LI>Step to other foot
<LI>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.

I feel better now. :)

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

Life's too short.

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

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

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), <i>then lands in essentially the same spot on <U>the "green" foot</U></I>, you're going to allow it?

May I tentatively add something? if that player <I>"then lands in essentially the same spot on <U>both the "green" foot and "red" foot simultaneously"</U></I>, life may be easier for the refs.

Theoretically, I agree with Chuck, but in practice I think I would call it just because it looks funny. I'd be willing to bet (if I wasn't a Quaker) that 98% of other refs would, too. Hmmm...

I'll bet you a quarter you're really a bettin' person... ;)

I happen to agree that if I see something unusual happen, and I can't easily turn around and explain to a coach quickly how it was a legal move, then it's a travel. Sometimes it's fun to disect all the posibilities, but it still boils down to making that split-second decision during the game. Find and know which foot is the pivot foot, and the rest is (relatively) easy.

Now what am I going to do if their feet aren't painted red or green?...

Now why do I think that's a funny question to be asked by someone called "M&M Guy"?