4-44 Article 3

[kblehman]

I'm a rookie, having begun my officiating career just a couple years ago, so I apologize if this has been rehashed ad nauseum.

I don't understand why the description in Section 4-44, Article 3 is not traveling. The way I read this is that if a player establishes a pivot foot, he can step onto his other foot as long as he's doing so to either shoot or pass.

To me this seems like the old Kevin McHale move, where the shooter is essentially gaining another step (to shoot) after establishing his other foot as the pivot. (Chauncey Billups does it all the time.)

I can see that it wouldn't be a travel if he were to jump off of both feet and shoot before landing again. But establishing his left foot as the pivot and then walking onto his right to squeeze off a shot sure seems like traveling to me. I.e., he's changing pivot feet without a dribble.

OTOH, if he hasn't used his dribble and does the same thing before putting the ball down to begin dribbling, it IS a travel.

It seems inconsistent to me. Can someone explain the reasoning here?


The same rule states that it IS a travel if

[jdw3018]

The reasoning is that traveling occurs not when the pivot foot leaves the ground but when it returns to the ground. Pretty simple, really.

[Rodical]

Not at all certain where you were going when you left mid-sentence, but here's my take. Once a player has established his/her pivot foot, he/she may only lift that pivot foot to pass or shoot. It's legal as long as a pass or shot is executed before that pivot foot touches the floor. The action of the other foot is not a factor, so yeah, a long step and a shot is legal. It seems inconsistent, but if it were not legal, there would be no way to execute, for instance, a hook shot. Or even a layup. The player is allowed one step after the pivot foot is established, as long as a pass or shot is taken. If the dribble is still available, it must be STARTED before the pivot foot moves.

[bob jenkins]

Have you ever seen a lay-up? Without the rule, those would be illegal.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Have you ever seen a lay-up? Without the rule, those would be illegal.

So would be any shot other than a set-shot.

[kblehman]

I understand the (sarcastic) comments about a layup. On the run, the players gets those steps. No problem.

I was speaking more along the lines of a player who has used those steps to come to a stop and establish a pivot foot (instead of shooting), but then decides to take a shot. The rule seems to allow him to switch his pivot foot without a dribble, which I understood to be traveling.

Sounds like what you're all saying is that no matter what has already transpired, the player gets his "layup steps."
But then, why only 1?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by kblehman

I understand the (sarcastic) comments about a layup. On the run, the players gets those steps. No problem.

I was speaking more along the lines of a player who has used those steps to come to a stop and establish a pivot foot (instead of shooting), but then decides to take a shot. The rule seems to allow him to switch his pivot foot without a dribble, which I understood to be traveling.

Sounds like what you're all saying is that no matter what has already transpired, the player gets his "layup steps."
But then, why only 1?

you're getting your vocabulary and the rule book vocabulary all mixed up, and it makes it hard to answer your question.

What you have to determine is when the dribble was ended (ball "gathered") in relationship to when and where the feet were positioned. From there you shouldn't have any trouble determining which foot is the pivot and what movements are legal.

The problem is that in "real time" at full speed, sometimes it's a little difficult to tell when the ball was gathered, when two hands were touching, when the dribble ended. So most refs give the benefit of the doubt and allow an "extra" half a step or so to be sure there really was "two handed control". That may be what you're seeing.

Furthermore, the rules governing travelling in the NBA are much different from HS and you need to not even consider NBA moves when you're evaluating how to call travels in a HS game.

Does that help?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kblehman

I understand the (sarcastic) comments about a layup. On the run, the players gets those steps. No problem.

I was speaking more along the lines of a player who has used those steps to come to a stop and establish a pivot foot (instead of shooting), but then decides to take a shot. The rule seems to allow him to switch his pivot foot without a dribble, which I understood to be traveling.

Sounds like what you're all saying is that no matter what has already transpired, the player gets his "layup steps."
But then, why only 1?

Do you have a rule book? What is the definition of "pivot"? When is is a violation to move the pivot foot?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by kblehman

The rule seems to allow him to switch his pivot foot without a dribble, which I understood to be traveling.

A player never gets to switch his/her pivot foot.

If you understand the definition of the pivot foot, and what a player is and is not allowed to do with the pivot foot, then it's really very simple.

Not always simple to call, but that has to do with what Rainmaker was saying above - determining when the ball was gathered and which foot is established. But if you know which foot is the pivot foot, traveling becomes very easy to call if you can see the feet...

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Have you ever seen a lay-up? Without the rule, those would be illegal.

Wouldn't a layup still be legal per the Jumpstop rule.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Wouldn't a layup still be legal per the Jumpstop rule.

A jumpstop and a layup are not related. When a player legally performs what is commonly known as a jumpstop, (this term, as far as I know, does not appear in any NFHS book) he comes to a legal stop. He may or may not shoot afterward, but if he lifts either foot, he may not return it to the floor before releasing the ball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A jumpstop and a layup are not related. When a player legally performs what is commonly known as a jumpstop, (this term, as far as I know, does not appear in any NFHS book) he comes to a legal stop. He may or may not shoot afterward, but if he lifts either foot, he may not return it to the floor before releasing the ball.

While you are correct that the term doesn't appear in the NFHS rules book (I seem to recall it being used on one case or interp a few years ago), it appears in the NCAA book, and it means BOTH 1) landing on one foot, jumping off it and then landing on both -- neither can be the pivot; AND 2) Landing on both feet simultaneously -- either can be the pivot.

In my experience, most HS officials only mean the first (e.g., your post); most HS coaches only mean the second. Thus the disconnect when we talk to coaches using that term.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In my experience, most HS officials only mean the first (e.g., your post); most HS coaches only mean the second. Thus the disconnect when we talk to coaches using that term.

In my experience, most coaches use it to explain away a traveling violation called on their own team.

"What?? That was a jumpstop!!"

[kblehman]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Have you ever seen a lay-up? Without the rule, those would be illegal.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

So would be any shot other than a set-shot.

With all due respect, a jump shot does not entail switching the pivot foot.

[Scooby]

Originally Posted by kblehman

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Have you ever seen a lay-up? Without the rule, those would be illegal.



With all due respect, a jump shot does not entail switching the pivot foot.

But it does entail picking up your pivot foot before you release the ball.