Case Play from SEC Camp
 

Here is a good one you guys! Had some interesting answers at our HS meeting last night. Here is the play:

Player A2 in on the left wing outside the 3 point line. B2 is defending. A1 has the ball at the top of the key. B2 takes a quick peak at A1 (with the ball). As B2 rotates their head left (away from A2 to take the peak at the ball), A2 cuts left (around B2) toward the basket.

A passing lane opens and A1 makes an easy pass to A2 (on their way for an easy lay-up). A2 catches and possess the ball (on the move) with their RIGHT foot on the floor. Then, A2 takes a step with their LEFT foot toward the basket, LIFTING their right foot. (OK so far????)

Then, because A2 is not close enough to the rim for an easy lay up, A2 gets innovative and HOPS on their left foot (the right foot still never touching the floor again). A2 then lays the ball up and in for an easy left side lay-up.

You are at Lead (ball side) and have a fantastic view of the play. What would you call? Traveling (and wave off the score)? Nothing (a legal play)? Nothing (astonished that this actually happened)? Nothing (do not understand Rule 4, Section 44)? How would you back it up if questioned?

(And, YES this case play actually happened!!)

:D

Travelling. The only "argument" can be over literal parsing of the rules.

Travelling

It's a travel. It might not be specifically defined as such...or at all....but the intent and purpose of the rule can't be to allow a player to pogo-hop down the court without dribbling or shooting while in player control of the ball.

Not specifically covered iow, but that's what I'd call....just off the top of my head.

I don't even work anywhere near the SEC, so I can't pretend to know what they would do. But in my game, that's a travel.

My vote....wait for it...travel.

travel, or as the kids would call it "ups and downs"

I don't know what year of SEC camp you are talking about but since most all the guys are still of the coach Guthrie line this would be a walk because of the pro "hop" rule, therefore I would say that it is a travel cause you cannot hop off of one leg and land on the same leg. I know, I know it is a travel in any ruleset but I would bet that at camp that is the reasoning they gave.

In my game it would be a travel

Traveling in NFHS and NCAA.

It's like Geico. Even a (Truerookie) can call it. Travelling!:D

Ok, first of all, I'm not really in love with your tone.

http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncat.../caveman_1.jpg

I seem to have lost my appetite.

(ring, ring) "It's my mom. I'll put it on speaker..."

Has a pivot foot been established? Yes, per 44-2-a-2.
Then 44-3-b applies "If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal."

Right foot and left foot were different last time I looked.

The lesson, as always: I'm an idiot.

Two hours have gone by, and no one is jumping to your defense. So I will jump in and help a fellow Cub fan. (Oh, wait, that doesn't necessarily refute the idiot part, does it?)

Anyway, I had the same initial impression you did after reading the post, but went back later and saw the reason for the question - the pivot foot had not yet come back down, so can we call a travel before the pivot foot comes back down? I still say yes, only because that loophole was certainly not intended by the rules committes(s). If a coach presses me on it, I'll just give him 2-3 as the reference. So there.

Jimgolf provided the pertinent rules reference: 4-44.3b. There is no loophole.

That rule reference contains the phrase "After coming to a stop ...." In the OP, the player never stopped.

That's why my first response in this thread was to the effect that the only arguement to be had on this case was some overly ANALytical parsing of the rules book.

The pertinent words in 4-44-3b are [i]"and establishing a pivot foot:"
Once A2 took a step with his LEFT foot he established his RIGHT foot as the pivot and his actions are governed by 4-44-2b and 4-44-3b.

I know what you're saying, but there are some who would argue 4-44-2(b)1, then 4-44-3(a) applies.

Remember, we're both on the same side of the arguement, it's just that you feel the rule is concrete, and there are some who don't feel it's quite as obvious. Bottom line, it's still a travel in most people's books.

I hear ya. Maybe my reply should have been: What a waste of virtual space! We need to create a Darwin award for this thread. ;)

comon guys, I just wanted to weed out the rule book quotes!!!:D