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?

[kblehman]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.
[snip]
Does that help?

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.

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.

[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...

[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.

[kblehman]

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

Originally Posted by Scooby

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

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?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by kblehman

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

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.

[jdw3018]

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.

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?