A clever attempt. However, since your explanation rules out jumping or landing with both feet simultaneously, you have just eliminated the jumpstop from the game. ;)

I like the way the NFHS handled it. They simply admit that this play needs its own caseplay and state that in this particular situation one foot must be considered the pivot.

4.44.3 SITUATION B: A1 receives the ball with both feet off the floor and he/she lands simultaneously on both feet without establishing a pivot foot. A1 then jumps off both feet in an attempt to try for goal, but realizing the shot may be blocked, A1 drops the ball to the floor and dribbles. RULING: A1 has traveled as one foot must be considered to be the pivot and must be on the floor when the ball is released to start a dribble. The fact that no pivot foot had been established does not alter this ruling.

So this means a player catching a ball while airborne may land on their smiley face without penalty?

Also a clever attempt. But, if you go back to Snaq's original play, it has nothing to do with a jump stop. A jump stop involves catching the ball in the air, then landing, correct? Those situations are covered by Art. 3, and also the Fed's case play. In his case, his player catches the ball with both feet on the floor - that's what Art. 2 covers. I think it is a travel based on what Art. 2 states, which is when the ball is caught with both feet already on the ground, either foot can become the pivot foot simply by the other foot lifting off the ground. That's all I'm saying - I think we agree this play should be a travel, I'm just trying to supply the rationale.

I'm guessing there's a penalty of some sort; I just haven't found where it's written.

Maybe I should try the Hackensack Public Library? :eek:

Are you refering to Snaq's example or the play from the NCAAW's quiz?

I happen to think that BOTH should be travels, but obviously the folks that govern NCAAW ball don't agree. :rolleyes:

Ok, it goes back to my initial comment - I can see the reasoning where the quiz example can be legal, and I agree Snaq's play is a travel. Regarding the quiz play, there is no pivot foot established, so how can there be a travel violation without a pivot foot? Since the NCAA doesn't use the Fed case play, we have to go under the assumption that no pivot foot = no travel violation. In Snaq's play, he was trying to provide another example of no pivot foot established, however, I disagree in that once the player jumped, there was a pivot foot established due to Art. 2. So, in that respect, I agree with both of you on the fact his play is a travel, just not on the reasoning why. Does that make sense?