confused by the traveling rule

[ysong]

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. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch is the pivot.
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 . . . After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:
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:

With Assumption A, 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.

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

With Assumption 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.

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.


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]