Travel?
 

This situation is being kicked around my association right now.....

Men's League game. A1, an extremely athletic guard, makes a strong move from about the top of the key and from about the first lane line after the FT line, jumps into the air...whether to pass or shoot, you can't tell, but he's facing the hoop. While on the way up, he loses the ball himself...i.e., it wasn't stripped, tipped or anything by anyone, he just lost it. Ball, after it hits the floor, is knocked back to half court by a defensive player, and then is recovered by A2.

Some are of the philosophy that this is a travel....i.e., saying that once someone leaves their feet, they must either pass or shoot. If one of those two aren't accomplished, automatic travel. Thoughts? Change the scenario slightly...what if A1 JUMP STOPPED to first lane line, and then went back up and lost it...does that change anything?

It could only be a travel if A1 was the first to touch the ball after he lost it. If any other player touched the loose ball in between, player control ends and the shooter can then recover the ball and do whatever he wants to do- land, dribble,shoot,pass,etc.

See casebook plays 9.5.1 and 9.5.3.

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.)

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.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=25721

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 <b>not</b> release the ball on a pass or a try, and I ain't gonna let him benefit just by dropping the ball.

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.

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.

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." :)

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. :p

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.

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.

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.

I submitted the play about recovering the fumble while still airborne; but not the other one.

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.

Yup, one's covered and the other one isn't. I realize that by inference you certainly can make a case for legitimizing the fumble as being legal. I'd like to see a definitive ruling though that covers both situations equally; a ruling that would take some of the "judgement" out of the call- re: fumble vs. deliberate drop. Anything to make the call easier to make and cut down arguments...