Travel?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I don't think either case play addresses this situation. In this case, the ball was fumbled by A1. A fumble is not an intentional act and it ends player control. A player can always recover a fumbled ball. No matter who touches it first, it's not traveling.

As Tony says, once player controls ends, that player or anyone else may recover the ball. Once the player loses the ball, there can be no traveling violation on this play. You must have player control to travel. (with the one exception of placing the ball on the floor and then standing up and picking it up.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As Tony says, once player controls ends, that player or anyone else may recover the ball. Once the player loses the ball, there can be no traveling violation on this play. You must have player control to travel. (with the one exception of placing the ball on the floor and then standing up and picking it up.)

Disagree completely. The player that lost(fumbled) the ball was an airborne player, as per the original post. If that player recovered the ball in the air, without another player touching it, and returned to the ground, that player then has travelled imo.

This is another one that we argued before. We disagreed then and we still disagree. Looks like TH has changed his mind since then though.

Airborne Fumble - Rule question.

And if the airborne player is the first to touch the ball after he returns to the floor, I'm still calling a travel under R4-43-3(b) and case play 4.43.3 SitB too. The airborne player did not release the ball on a pass or a try, and I ain't gonna let him benefit just by dropping the ball.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree completely. The player that lost(fumbled) the ball was an airborne player, as per the original post. If that player recovered the ball in the air, without another player touching it, and returned to the ground, that player then has travelled imo.

This is another one that we argued before. We disagreed then and we still disagree. Looks like TH has changed his mind since then though.

Airborne Fumble - Rule question.

Not true. My replies are exactly the same. In this play, he did NOT regain possession of the ball and then land. In TMP44's play, the ball hit the floor. Anyone is free to recover it.

And if the airborne player is the first to touch the ball after he returns to the floor, I'm still calling a travel under R4-43-3(b) and case play 4.43.3 SitB too. The airborne player did not release the ball on a pass or a try, and I ain't gonna let him benefit just by dropping the ball.

So if I'm standing still and fumble the ball, you'll let me go get it. But if I'm ariborne and fumble the ball, I can't go get it? Sorry JR but there's no rule basis for that call. You can't call traveling when there's an unintentional loss of player control. A fumble is an unintentional; loss of player control. It doesn't get anymore baisc than that. You can't call traveling because you don't like the play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

1) Not true. My replies are exactly the same. In this play, he did NOT regain possession of the ball and then land. In TMP44's play, the ball hit the floor. Anyone is free to recover it.



2) So if I'm standing still and fumble the ball, you'll let me go get it. But if I'm ariborne and fumble the ball, I can't go get it? Sorry JR but there's no rule basis for that call. You can't call traveling when there's an unintentional loss of player control. A fumble is an unintentional; loss of player control. It doesn't get anymore baisc than that. You can't call traveling because you don't like the play.

1) OK, we still agree. That means that we both also still disagree with Nevada re: the traveling.

2) Looks like we disagree on that one. R4-43-3(b) doesn't mention a fumble, and imo the purpose and intent of the rule isn't to allow airborne players to benefit from a fumble. It's just placing too much on the calling official's back imo if he has to judge fumble versus deliberate drop on the play.

Both of these would be good ones for Chuck to submit as case plays, if he already hasn't.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) OK, we still agree. That means that we both also still disagree with Nevada re: the traveling.

2) Looks like we disagree on that one. R4-43-3(b) doesn't mention a fumble, and imo the purpose and intent of the rule isn't to allow airborne players to benefit from a fumble. It's just placing too much on the calling official's back imo if he has to judge fumble versus deliberate drop on the play.

Both of these would be good ones for Chuck to submit as case plays, if he already hasn't.

You need to buy a new rule book. Traveling is found under 4-44.

BTW, 4-44 says,

Traveling (running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball.

Nowhere in the rule book does it say "...a player may shoot, pass or fumble the ball..." no matter what situation we're talking about. Why? Because passing and shooting are intentional acts. Fumbling the ball is not.

[Nevadaref]

Yes, JR, we still disagree on the legality of this play.

We do agree that it would have been a great one for Chuck to have submitted as a case book play.
There's always the interps! We may have to get it taken care of there this year.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

BTW, 4-44 says,

Traveling (running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball.

Nowhere in the rule book does it say "...a player may shoot, pass or fumble the ball..." no matter what situation we're talking about. Why? Because passing and shooting are intentional acts. Fumbling the ball is not.

In case play 4.44.3SitB, hasn't A1 traveled as soon as he touched the dropped ball?

That was my point.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

In case play 4.44.3SitB, hasn't A1 traveled as soon as he touched the dropped ball?

That was my point.

In that play A1 has violated as soon as the dribble is started.

If the ball had been fumbled (accidental slipping from grasp) to the floor instead of dropped (purposeful action), then I believe that the ruling would be that the play is legal.

That is the play I want the NFHS to put into the case book. Replace the word dropped in this play with fumbled.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

In case play 4.44.3SitB, hasn't A1 traveled as soon as he touched the dropped ball?

That was my point.

Yes, he's traveled but the Fed differentiates between dropping the ball (intentionally) and fumbling it (unintentionally). That's why tmp44's play is not like any case book play, as it's a fumble, not an intentional release of the ball.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You can't call traveling when there's an unintentional loss of player control.

You mean, "You shouldn't", not "You can't". Officials make this call frequently. Perhaps you missed the section in the rulebook that says, "I know traveling when I see it."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by TADW_Elessar

As Nevadaref and BktballRef rightly pointed out, you can't commit a travelling violation if you are not holding the ball in your hand(s). Ever.

That's definitely NOT what I said. In fact, I went out of my way to specify that there was one exception, if you had read my post that was made almost 12 hours prior to your's!

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As Tony says, once player controls ends, that player or anyone else may recover the ball. Once the player loses the ball, there can be no traveling violation on this play. You must have player control to travel. (with the one exception of placing the ball on the floor and then standing up and picking it up.)

[TADW_Elessar]

I understand.

let's sum up, then:

1) Player jumps, drops the ball and recovers it. ---> Travelling
2) Player jumps, fumbles, then recovers the fumble. ---> Legal play

Right?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TADW_Elessar

I understand.

let's sum up, then:

1) Player jumps, drops the ball and recovers it. ---> Travelling
2) Player jumps, fumbles, then recovers the fumble. ---> Legal play

Right?

No.

Agree with #1 if it's a deliberate drop.

In #2, if the player recovers the fumble in mid-air and then comes down with the ball, it's traveling. If the airborne player recovers the fumble after coming down, it may or may not be traveling.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by TADW_Elessar

I understand.

let's sum up, then:

1) Player jumps, drops the ball and recovers it. ---> Travelling
2) Player jumps, fumbles, then recovers the fumble. ---> Legal play

Right?

I agree with that.

I disagree with JR on his ruling on #2. Player control ended and then started again. This player is now that same as a player who jumped without the ball and caught it while airborne. He may land.

That's my opinion.

[Jimgolf]

This would make a good Exam question.