4-44 Article 3
 

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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...

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.

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.

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

"What?? That was a jumpstop!!"

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.

True, but it does entail LIFTING the pivot foot. The original poster didn't see how it was legal to step with your non-pivot foot and then lift your pivot foot. To him, that seemed like "switching" your pivot foot.

Bob's point and Blindzebra's point was that if you couldn't lift that pivot foot after stepping with the non-pivot foot, the lay-up and jump shot would be illegal -- exactly because both require you to lift your pivot foot.

kblehman, this thread is now 15 posts long and I haven't seen you respond to the good answers you've been given. Why do you continue to argue that somehow what you posted above is "switching" your pivot foot?

Rainmaker,
Thank you for your input; I apologize for my unclear explanation.

I think I'm pretty familiar with the game--I played competitive b-ball for 30 years and I'm in my 3rd year of HS officiating. So, despite the rather flippant replies of a few members, I was asking what I thought was a legitimate question and hoping for some clarification.

I wasn't talking about switching a pivot foot on a layup or drive to the hoop. I understand the difference between the steps required to finish a layup and a stationary player taking additional steps without a dribble. My question regarding 4-44-3 involves a player who has either used up his dribble and come to a stop and established a pivot foot, or has not used his dribble but has obviously established a pivot foot. In these 2 instances it seems to me that if his left foot is his pivot but he's allowed to walk onto his right foot to get off a shot, he is, in effect, switching his pivot foot without a dribble.

Say I play excellent defense and stop a player's drive down the right side of the lane. He pulls up his dribble on the second block and establishes his right foot as his pivot. I'm all over him defensively because I know he can't go anywhere (except straight up, or so I thought). But, viola! With ball in hand, he steps forward onto his left foot, jumps forward off his left and makes a layup. I guess I'm old school because I've always assumed it's traveling; the player has clearly switched his pivot foot without a dribble. But according to 4-44-3 this is legal as long as he releases the ball prior to his original pivot foot landing back on the floor.

LOL, I used to play with a couple guys who did this all the time. You'd play good D or maybe trap them in a double-team and force them to pick up their dribble, so you knew they could no longer go anywhere. And all of a sudden they'd step through to their other (non-pivot) foot and get off a shot. We always considered it to be a travel. Guess they were ahead of their time. :o

I've called that step-through move a travel a few times this year and never had it questioned. I've also let it go a few times and heard fans and coaches call for traveling, so I guess I'm not the only one confused by it.

You're mis-understanding the nature of the pivot foot. Pivot foot doesn't mean it's attached to the floor, it means "the foot that can't be picked up and put back down". It can be picked up, as long as it's not put back down. So in your sitch above, you can step onto your left foot and lift your pivot/right foot, as long as you don't put it back down.

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

True. But would there be a problem if the jump shooter switched from his left (pivot) foot to his right, and then picked it up to release the shot? :D

First, I'd like to say that I honestly think you misinterpreted some comments as flippant when they were not at all intended that way. You seemed to think Bob Jenkins was being flippant with his (albeit brief) answer about the lay-up. He was not being flippant. His answer was exactly correct. I think it's possible that it seemed to contain some attitude that it really didn't contain. I sincerely hope you won't resent the comments here.

Second, the traveling principles are exactly the same for those two situations. So your distinction doesn't really make a difference, from a rules perspective.

And what Bob and I and others have been trying to clarify is that he is NOT, from a rules perspective, switching his pivot foot.

And this is exactly WHY he hasn't changed his pivot foot. The restrictions on traveling have to do with what you do with the pivot foot, not the non-pivot foot. You can <s>always</s> lift the pivot foot (with one exception) as long as you release the ball or request time-out before the pivot touches the ground again.

And now, you've entered the world of officiating and you understand that coaches and fans know absolutely NOTHING about the rules 99% of the time. :)

pivot foot isn't attached to the floor. see above (or below if you have a browser like mine).

It's important that you realize this is not switching the pivot foot. Read and understand the definition of the pivot foot and what you can do with it, and it's clearly not switching the pivot foot.

The step-through move has been legal for a long time. However, it can at times look awkward, so you many times can get away with calling it without lots of uproar, and there are lots of moves that look funny that aren't traveling, so fans are going to yell about them even if they aren't traveling.

What many have pointed out there is that the play is actually no different...when a player establishes a pivot foot, he may lift that foot and jump off the other - whether he's "stationary" or not before that doesn't matter. The layup and the step-through are essentially exactly the same from a rules standpoint.

I hope you don't feel my answers and questions haven't been flippant...I just don't see what you're trying to accomplish here, unless you want to argue the rule should be changed.

No, as long as his left didn't come back down. Because the right was never his pivot foot.

Ahh, I see. So in my situation, where the defender has forced the ball handler to pick up his dribble, the ball handler essentially has one step left as long as he unloads the ball before the original pivot foot comes back down.

I've always thought he had to leave the floor either off his established pivot foot or off both feet simultaneously. It still seems strange to me that he essentially gets an extra step (if he had continued his layup drive he wouldn't have) but I will acquiesce to the experts.

Thank you for helping me understand, and especially for clarifying the nature of the pivot foot. I appreciate it.

I'm confused by this statement (confusion is a way of life for me)...how does he get an extra step on a step-through but not on a layup?

If left is pivot in both scenarios, and right is the "launch" foot, then isn't it exactly the same other than the fact that one was continuous motion and in the other he stopped, then completed the motion?

Trust me, that was the first thing I learned. :rolleyes:

Well, it's clear to me now that I misunderstood the nature of the pivot foot and its primary role in establishing whether or not a player travels. That's what led me to ask the original question. Thanks for helping to educate me.

Without being flippant: Stop thinking in terms of "steps." Think of "allowed movement of pivot foot."

It's a travel when the pivot foot moves in excess of prescribed limits (or words to that effect from rule 4-travelling)

Originally Posted by kblehman
Would there be a problem if the jump shooter switched from his left (pivot) foot to his right, and then picked it up to release the shot?

Thank you, jdw. Your response prompts me to ask about 2 more scenarios. The first usually occurs in kids' games, the second occurs often in HS games.

1. A1 is being pressured heavily in the front court and is forced to pick up his dribble. Left foot becomes pivot. Defense now overplays the passing lanes. A1 starts to pass to A2 but sees it would be picked off so he holds up. However, his momentum has carried him off his left (pivot) and onto his right foot. So now he's balancing on his right foot, left foot in the air. This is not a travel unless his left foot comes back down, correct?

2. The point guard (A1) begins to penetrate, drawing defenders to him. A1 then kicks it out to B1, who is setting up for a three on the right wing. B1 catches the pass, then does a small bunny-hop to square himself for the three. The bunny-hop was with both feet and after he caught the ball. Is this a travel? (IMO yes) If so, how close do you call it?

Thank you in advance for your feedback.

Correct. This is not a violation, and he can legally stand on his right foot until he returns his left to the floor or commits any other violation or foul (or obviously passes or shoots the ball).

"Bunny-hopping" as you have described is illegal, and I will call it when I see it in a high school game. Depending on the level of play, this may get a pass from me in a middle school game.

There is a legal way to bunny-hop, and that's by executing a legal jump stop - if the player catches the ball with one foot on the ground, or catches in the air then lands on one foot, he can jump off that foot and onto both feet simultaneously, then jump to shoot or pass, or begin a dribble.

This is the one time a player who is standing and holding the ball (edit) may not establish a pivot foot.

Correct.

This is a travel. Around here, it never gets called. YMMV

Always glad to help. My obsession with language can be a problem sometimes, and sometimes it's a real advantage. In this case, it worked for me, and for you.

My suggestion is that you start letting a lot of these borderline travel go (equally for both teams)until another official gets critical. Then you'll know you've gone too far, and you can tighten up just a little. Give yourself a chance to practice seeing which foot is the pivot, where the ball is gathered (dribble ended) getting a feel for how to see this before you start deciding where to call it. You're on the right track now. Keep pursuing that all important balance!

My suggestion is that you ignore this suggestion.

There is <b>NO</b> such thing as a "borderline" travel. It's either a travel...or it's legal. Allowing players to score <b>illegally</b> is just wrong imo.

I happen to agree with Jurassic here. The play you described is not borderline at all - it is legal, and that's why you should let it go.

I'll also add that the only thing I think is worse than allowing a player to score illegally would be disallowing a legal play like has been described throughout this thread.

Okay, let me rephrase. My suggestion is that while kb is still learning to see when the ball was gathered, whether the pivot foot left the floor before the ball left the hand to start a dribble, how to determine which foot is the pivot foot, that he err on the side of only calling what he's 100% certain of, and not using 75% or 80% certain as his determiner. Focus on seeing fully rather than on calling everything. When he sees more clearly, he can call more consistently.

Does that sound more acceptable?

Excellent rephrasing. :D

See the entire play and call traveling when it's there. If you know the rules and are still unsure, then you haven't seen the entire play and should pass even if you think it probably was a travel. Only call what you see.

What is highlighted in red above is not only acceptable imo but should also be the norm for <b>all</b> calls at <b>all</b> times.

The short version is "don't guess".:)

Simultaneously determining which is the pivot foot and when the ball is gathered is difficult for me when players employ the jump stop, especially if the ball handler is in traffic. Sometimes I can just tell by the look of the drive that he took one too many after he gathered the ball, but other times it's difficult to tell. (FWIW, if I don't know for sure I don't call it.)



These I don't have a lot of trouble with. It's that pesky jump stop that's difficult for me to break down.



I don't know if this is the correct overall philosophy to apply, but it's what I try and do for all calls. One of the things I mention to my partner just before the toss is: "Call what you see, but be sure to see what you call." IOW, if I don't see it, don't guess.

1. A1 is being pressured heavily in the front court and is forced to pick up his dribble. Left foot becomes pivot. Defense now overplays the passing lanes. A1 starts to pass to A2 but sees it would be picked off so he holds up. However, his momentum has carried him off his left (pivot) and onto his right foot. So now he's balancing on his right foot, left foot in the air. This is not a travel unless his left foot comes back down, correct?
Please indulge me for one more follow-up. What if A1 goes to pass the ball and instead of lifting his pivot foot off the floor he drags it 6" without it ever leaving the floor. Is that a travel?

yes.

If both feet were on the floor, he may lift the pivot without a violation unless he returns the foot to the floor or starts a dribble. If he hops from his left foot to his right, (both feet off the floor) violation.




yes

What if A1 goes to pass the ball and instead of lifting his pivot foot off the floor he drags it 6" without it ever leaving the floor. Is that a travel?
I still don't agree with the lift pivot-foot rule (from a stationary player), but now it's confirmed that a stationary player can fully step off of his pivot foot, but not drag it. LOL, I'm sufficiently confused now.... :o

Read the definition of pivot: 4-33 ......the pivot foot is kept at its point of contact with the floor.


The player is allowed to lift the pivot to shoot or pass, but not to start a dribble.
Any time the pivot is lifted and returned to the floor, it is a violation. Simple enough?

There are rules I disagree with as well, even if this isn't one of them. :)

Think of dragging the pivot foot as, essentially, moving it from one location on the floor to another.

As long as he can balance for 4 seconds (maybe 9 in the backcourt), lifting it in the air is legal. It's a step-through move that's been around forever.

But now you are confused at a higher level, about more important things. :D

Is that "moving the pivot foot in excess of the prescribe limits" in 4-travelling?

Your explanation of dragging the pivot foot makes sense, thank you.

I don't disagree that the player should be able to lift his pivot foot to shoot, I just think that allowing it to be a step puts the defense at a disadvantage if the player has already used up his dribble.

I've never had a problem with jumping off a pivot foot to shoot (without a dribble) as long as the jump is with both feet. Seems to me that stepping to the other foot is much more of an advantage than dragging the pivot foot, yet dragging it is an infraction. But then, I still see most jump-stop moves as traveling. Guess I'm old school. :rolleyes:

Anyway, thanks to all for their patience in helping me understand. I've already put my new knowledge to good use on the floor this week. And if a coach questions a call I can cite the rule number now, too. :cool:

Sure, it's an advantage, but it's an advantage the rule makers are apparently ok with. :)

Most good hook shots require this move.