Disclaimer:

I only want more help to understand the travel rule. It is not a debate because I've not established any of my own idea yet. (Actually, my established ideas were totally destroyed recently.) The reason why I ask questions and why I may question the answers I am given is NOT to argue or debate or to disrespect, instead, it is to show where my confusions are so I can get further well-focused help.

First, the NFHS traveling rule 4-43:

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:
1. Simultaneously on both feet, either foot may be the pivot.
2. <U>On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch is the pivot.</U>
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both. Neither foot can be a pivot in this case.
...

ART. 3 . . . <U>After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot</U>:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
b. If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
...



What I want to know:

Does 4-43-2-a(2) describe a "step" only, or does it describe an action that may be a "step or a "jump"?


My confusions:

if the action in 43-2-a(2) may be a "jump", the rule is self-contradictory, when either of the following assumptions is true.

assumption A : in this jump, at the moment the first foot touches floor, the first foot becomes the pivot foot.

assumption B : in this jump, the first foot does not become the pivot foot until the second foot touches floor.

My rationales:

<B>With Assumption A</B>, foot 1 touches floor and becomes the pivot foot instaneously, but when player jumps off it, his foot 2 is not allowed to come down until ball is gone. According to 43-3(b), after "establishing a pivot foot", if the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

<U>Therefore, with assumption A, rule 43-3(b) forbids 43-2-a(2) to be a "jump".</U>

<B>With Assumption B</B>, foot 1 touches floor first but no pivot foot yet. before "establishing a pivot foot" or "coming to a stop", foot 1 is lifted. when foot 2 down, foot 1 is established as the pivot foot. But this foot (foot 1) is lifted BEFORE player "coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot", not AFTER. this jump is not within prescribed limit, thus illegal.

<U>therefore, with assumption B, rule 43-3(a) does not accept 43-2-a(2) to be a "jump", and no other rules accept this particular jump either.</U>


My question:
do you think my claim that "the rule is self-contradictory when 43-2-a(2)allows a jump" makes sense? If not, where do I do wrong?

Thanks.










[Edited by ysong on May 18th, 2005 at 02:51 PM]

This just says that if you stop 1-2, then 1 is the pivot foot. If you stop 1, then 2-3, there is no pivot foot.

Don't try to read more into it.

Thanks for your answer. But I am afraid I do not understand the underlined part.

Would you make it clear for me? what is "2-3"?

Thanks.

Jim,
I applaud your "spirit and intent".
mick

OK, in the case of the jumpstop and a player steps with one foot and simultaneously lands on two, the rule says neither is a pivot. So I am assuming that you can not then step and lift a foot to shoot or pass as described because you can not lift a pivot foot that you never had. Am I understanding this correctly.

yes you are right
 

after a jump stop you have no pivot rights -- if any foot is lifted the ball better leave the players hand before it comes back down --

but a travel from a jump stop is partially subjective as well -- as long as both feet come down close enough and not necessarily at the same time but one....two with about a fraction of a second difference and it didnt give player with an advantage i pass on it.

one thing i am working on this off season -- besides trying to coach :) instead of ref -- is to not call anything that doesn't effect the game and let the play take care of itself...in fact i had an argument with another dip**** adult yesterday regarding the 3 second rule -- this is one of the hardest rules/infractions to explain to people as apparently when it comes to the 3 second rule everyone was raised in a military household -- "well if he were in there for 3 seconds no matter what its a violation and you should call it" -- to which i reply "everytime you speed on the freeway you should pull over to the nearest police officer and ask him to write you a ticket".

They dont like that one but i get a kick out of it. which reminds me of another joke

-----

A police officer is waiting along a road when a kid speeds by him. The officer proceeds to pull the kid over and walks over to the kids car.

officer: Son, I've been waiting for you here all day, you just made my day.

kid: Well I got here as fast as I could.

The officer after wiping the tears of laughter out of his eyes let the kid off with a warning.

Nope.
Since neither foot is a pivot, one or both feet may be raised, but neither may be returned.

It looks like 4-43-3-b (... If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal) seems to imply that you can jump off of both feet to pass or shoot. Is this correct?

Re: yes you are right
 

deecee,
Are you using the coach's book now? ;)
mick

hmpph
 

i think that the coaches rulebook explains it easier than the runaround in our manuals.

Thanks, TigerBball.

I get your point. but I am not sure if I am fully convinced by this analogy.

In your example, the rule 43-4-a describes it as allowed move. Further more, this move does not contradict any other rules.

In my example, first, there are no explicit rule describes this "jump" as allowed move. second, if it is implied that this "jump" is allowed, then the logic of this rule set seems very twisted.

But if 43-2-a(2) only describe a "step", the logic of related rules are more consistent.

Thanks.

Ummmm, how about this:

Player with ball is dribbling, takes one last dribble and simultaneously jumps off one foot and lands on both feet at the same time. He/She can pivot?

I've always believed they can.

does the player pick up the dribble before the player is in the air, or after?

(assuming it can not be exactly "simultaneously".)

Nope.
Cannot pivot. :)
mick

I'd be interested in knowing how you can simultaneously jump off one foot and land with both feet at the same time... :eek:

PGCougar,
WindyCityRef did not write that.

WindyCityRef did write this:
"...takes one last dribble and simultaneously jumps off one foot...."

mick

Ok, why not? I've read and re-read the rule and I cannot see where it says you cannot.

Let's say you are dribbling with your right hand and as you dribble the ball one last time and as the ball is in the air, you jump off your left foot. Now both feet are in the air and the ball is in both hands. You land on both feet at the same time. From what I can read in the rules, if both feet land at the same time, either foot can be your pivot.

What am I reading wrong?

We see different plays, that's all.
Readin' and imaginin' don't always match.
Pick your play.
<LI>43-2-a(1)<LI>43-2-b(2)
mick

It all comes down to did the player step, then end the dribble, or end dribble and then step.

If you step, end your dribble, then land on 2, you can pivot. Thus allowing you to step again, lift the pivot, and pass or shoot.

If you end your dribble, step, then land on two feet simultaneously, you have no pivot, thus (and this is where I am unsure) you can not step again. If either foot lifts at this point, you have to pass or shoot, no step and lifting of the pivot allowed (that woudl be the pivot that you never had).

It depends on what you mean by "step" and "jump."

This rule only means what it says -- one foot followed by the other. At the time the "other" foot lands, the "first" foot might still be on the ground (I'm guessing this is your "step") or might now be in the air (I'm guessing this is your "jump").

Either way, the "first" foot is still the pivot foot, and all the pivot foot restrictions apply.

Right, this is the way I've interpreted it also.

So far for me this is the best of the explanations the way I interpret the rules.

Thanks, Bob.

So you believe 4-43-2-a(2) can be either a "jump" or a "step".

But do you feel this rule set seems very awkward if 4-43-2-a(2) allows a "jump"? because:

1. the rule set is supposed to list exhaustively all the possible <U>foot(or feet) movements</U> that are allowed (while a player is holding the ball). in other word, any foot(feet) movements that are not listed should be considered illegal and any movement that is allowed by one rule should not contradict other applicable rules.

2. the rule explicitly says that the pivot foot may only be lifted AFTER the pivot foot is established. (if there is no pivot foot to be allowed, then foot/feet can be lifted at anytime.)

so it makes me think it is illegal for the will-be pivot foot to be lifted before it is established as the pivot foot. this move (presumably illegal) happens when a player "jumps" in 4-43-2-a(2) scenario.

You will be greatly appreciated if you point out which part of my thought does not make sense?

Thanks.

Ysong,

Player A1 driving to basket, jumps off left foot (Step 1) and lands on a jump stop with both feet (step 2). Can't pivot, because this is the second step. Jump to pass or shoot and it is legal. If A1 jumps from this point it is legal as long as he/she doesn't come down with ball. Can't pivot because both feet landed on the jumpstop so true pivot no longer exists.

The part where the pivot foot can't be lifted before the pivot foot is established.

Plus, I think you're trying to be too strict in parsing the wording.

If a foot isn't allowed to be lifted before it's established as the pivot foot, no one can move anywhere when they have the ball! As long as the player is dribbling, either foot can move anywhere. Neither foot is the pivot foot, but that doesn't matter because a pivot foot isn't necessary. If a player steps OR jumps (doesn't matter which) and then ends the dribble, the next foot to hit is the pivot foot. What either foot did before that is irrelevant. Now that a pivot foot is established, there are rules about what can happen. But before that pivot foot touches down, it doesn't matter what it does, because pivot foot rules don't matter until the dribble is ended.

Is there a definition of 'when the dribble is ended' in the rules? I think that is a sticky point in some of these explanations.

Ok, I'm going to answer my own question (should have looked it up before posting last time) :)

Rule 4, Sec 15, Art 4
a. The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.

So, if both feet are in the air before the player 'ends' his/her dribble, then lands after grasping the ball with two hands, he/she can pivot with either foot. Right?

Also, I believe I read once before that the NCAA Women's rule explains this better.

43-2-a2 describes <EM>a single</EM> landing...one foot followed by the other. It doesn't describe two landings: landing, jumping and landing again. The only time two landings are allowed is when the player, in the air, lands on one and jumps from that one and then lands simultaneously on both.

Thanks, rainmaker. You are absolutely right, travel rule does not apply when no dribbling is going on. (I know this much at least. :) )

But in the context of my question, the player is not dribbling. He is holding the ball (i.e, after a player catches the ball. To be more specific, he catches the ball when he is in mid air).

As Bob points out, my problem is to claim pivot foot can not be lifted before it becomes a pivot foot. The only reason I get this "unique" idea is that <U>this move is not explicitly listed as allowed move thus I deem it is illegal. </U>

(It is right, I may be too strict into the wording. The harder I try to get myself out of a confusion, the deeper I am in it.)

My confusion originates from the fact that most people believe 43-2-a(2) can also be a "jump" while for me it "obviously" sounds like a "step":

when the rule says "the player lands" "On one foot followed by the other", I can only picture one action (for there is only one verb), player "lands", I can not picture a "jump" between two landings, one by each foot.

Based on the style of the rule's wording, one would think it would have to be worded like "(the player lands) On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and land on the other foot", if the rule 43-2-a(2) allows this jump. it may even have to list this jump as 43-2-a(4), would you think?

I also wonder how many refs also believe 43-2-a(2) is a "step" rather than a "jump", 1%? 50%? 75%?

I think right now I have to rely on "faith" on this one, like, "It can also be a jump. Period. That is how I understand it or what I have been told anyway".

Thanks for your help.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

43-2-a2 describes <EM>a single</EM> landing...one foot followed by the other. It doesn't describe two landings: landing, jumping and landing again.

Exactly!

Huh?!?! :confused: The traveling rule only applies when there's no dribbling going on. It's not possible to travel when you're dribbling; so the travel rules only kick in when a player is NOT dribbling.

Got your attention again. ;)

That is why I say "the harder I try to get myself out of a confusion, the deeper I am in it.".

Why no comments from you on my "real" misconceptions?

Thanks.

How come you can not understand no word out of my mouth? :D

I thought I just gave you one. ;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ysong

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust Quote: 43-2-a2 describes <EM>a single</EM> landing...one foot followed by the other. It doesn't describe two landings: landing, jumping and landing again. Exactly!

Camron is using "jump" differently than you are using it.

Camron is describing one type of jump stop -- land on one foot, jump, then land on both feet. That's described elsewhere in the rule.

You're describing a "normal" landing -- and that can be done with the first foot on the floor or with the first foot leaving the floor and then the second foot landing on the floor.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Now that a pivot foot is established, there are rules about what can happen.

I percieve the whole purpose of establishing a pivot foot is to allow a player to pivot, then what is the point to establish a pivot foot when that foot is no longer allowed to be pivoted on?

That is another reason why I feel the logic is twisted if 43-4-2-a(2) allows a "jump".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by ysong Quote: Originally posted by Camron Rust Quote: 43-2-a2 describes <EM>a single</EM> landing...one foot followed by the other. It doesn't describe two landings: landing, jumping and landing again. Exactly! Camron is using "jump" differently than you are using it. Camron is describing one type of jump stop -- land on one foot, jump, then land on both feet. That's described elsewhere in the rule.

No he isn't. Ask him. :)

just
 

take a really long blink when you think there will be a travelling violation so you dont see it

if you dont see it you cannot call it

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ysong

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins Quote: Originally posted by ysong Quote: Originally posted by Camron Rust Quote: 43-2-a2 describes <EM>a single</EM> landing...one foot followed by the other. It doesn't describe two landings: landing, jumping and landing again. Exactly! Camron is using "jump" differently than you are using it. Camron is describing one type of jump stop -- land on one foot, jump, then land on both feet. That's described elsewhere in the rule. No he isn't. Ask him. :)

Hmmm.... This is just a perfect example of how one sentence can have two opposite interpretations and both of them seem perfectly correct.

But the fact is, there can only be ONE correct interpretation.

Imagine the following 3 scenarios:

A. A player catches a pass when he is in the air, lands on his left foot only, pauses, looks around, takes a drink, then put his right foot down.

B. A player catches a pass when he is in the air, lands on his left foot only, pauses, looks around, takes a drink, then "jumps" and lands on his right foot only.

C. A player catches a pass when he is in the air, lands on his left foot only, pauses, looks around, takes a drink, then "jumps" and lands on both feet.

Which one should I call travel?


[Edited by ysong on May 19th, 2005 at 03:30 PM]

Would you give a T for taking a drink during a live ball situation?

In option B does the player pass or shoot after that right foot comes down and the left has lifted.

The sequence after the drink is: left foot is lifted (player jumps off it), right foot down with ball still in hand. then the player waives to his mom and dad, while standing "single footed".

depends what the drink was
 

water yes - shot of Tequila to calm down the star player absolutly not...

None of these plays is a travel. All are covered perfectly by the rules.

Thanks for answering my questions, Bob.

You made it very clear that you have no doubt at all a "jump" is allowed by this rule, even for an exaggerated, far and high, or "delayed", jump. I really appreciate you for that.

Now I am only curious. Have you seen any case books or clarifications/interpretations that specifically addressed this "issue"? Or do you deem the rule itself spells it loud and clear?

Thanks.

The latter. If it were not allowed, many (most?) layups would be illegal.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins
[B]I think B is a travel.

The only rule that allows a player to catch-land-jump-land requires that the final landing be on both feet simultaneously. All other parts specify a single landing. A layup is a single landing....catch-land-step-shoot...and both feet may be briefly off the floor.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust
[B]Really?!? I think this is just like a drive for a lay-up but slowed way down. If the player catches in mid-air, then touches with the left, then is in mid-air for a period of time then touches with the right, how is that a travel, regardless of how long each single item takes?

Just for information only.

I checked some websites that teach kids to play basketball. in the lay-up sections, some of them make it clear that the first stride is a "step", not a "jump", even though they do not emphasize the point that it has to be a step.

Of course, I have only sampled very limited number of websites, and all I have sampled are only for kids.


I am wondering if any coaches here want to provide some helpful insights? (so I can understand the rule backwards: based on how basketball is usually played to decide what the rules are supposed to be. Very unique, isn't it. :) )

Thanks.



[Edited by ysong on May 20th, 2005 at 02:37 PM]

Yes. Really.

Step vs. Jump. They're not the same. In the layup, the action between the two points of contact is generally a lateral move.

The whole intent of the this portion of the travel rule is to provide a way for a player to come to a stop....not stop...jump...stop.

No one has commented on the case I posed earlier:

A1 catches ball on one foot. A1 jumps off of that foot to shoot. B1 is in position to block the shot. A1 decides not to shoot and hangs onto the ball then lands on the other foot. Traveling? I think so.

[Edited by Camron Rust on May 20th, 2005 at 06:38 PM]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
A step would also be a stride, in which the player could have both feet off the floor simultaneously when the player is running.
I also think this is a travel because a shot attempt was started, then not released before the player landed.

You pose a good point by saying a step is a lateral movement.

This would describe a running layup on a fast break:

A1 has the ball, passes to A2 who catches the ball mid-air, in-stride. A2 lands on left foot, strides, lands on right foot, jumps for layup. I do not believe this is a travel.

Anybody disagree?

You can always count on me for disagreements. :)

If your statement is taken out of context, then it lacks the support from any specific rules.

Your statement can also apply to a jump-stop when the player attempts to shoot then holds the ball and lands on both feet. but it is legal, however awkward it may look. agree or not?

Thanks.

Actually I disagree, here is what I'm trying to get across:

That would be the difference between jump and step or stride, at least how I am trying to explain it. When the player jumps to shoot, he/she is beginning a shot, at which point the player must shoot or pass before returning to the floor.

Get what I'm saying?