Question from NCAAW Quiz

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This is what 4-68 says:

Art. 6. It is traveling when a player falls to the playing court while holding the ball without maintaining a pivot foot.

I assume the NCAA is ruling that since A1 caught the ball in the air and fell directly to the floor that there is no pivot foot to maintain therefore it is not a travel.

I see no rule or A.R. that contridicts that.

BTW, I agree completely with your interpretation of "a".

BTW #2, why are you copying me? Quiz results

Sorry, I didn't know that you had already posted this. I must have been away for a few days when that happened.

I happen to believe that the NCAAW ruling that lack of an established pivot foot prevents a traveling call here is silly. I agree with the post by Snaqwells from your thread.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, I forgot to add I disagree with this as well.

A pivot foot is not required for a travel.

1. A1 catches a pass at midcourt and proceeds to fall on his tail-end. This is a travel.

2. A1 catches the ball in the paint with both feet planted. He then jumps to shoot only to find B1 towering over him ready to block the shot. A1 returns to the floor with the ball. Travel.

Neither situation above has a pivot foot established. Who printed these answers?

Are both of these actions allowed in the NCAAW's game?

But most importantly, does anyone have a definitive answer on this play for the NCAAM's side?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry, I didn't know that you had already posted this. I must have been away for a few days when that happened.

I happen to believe that the NCAAW ruling that lack of an established pivot foot prevents a traveling call here is silly. I agree with the post by Snaqwells from your thread.


Are both of these actions allowed in the NCAAW's game?

But most importantly, does anyone have a definitive answer on this play for the NCAAM's side?

Only because I'm sitting here trying to imagine a smiley face stuck up someone's a$$, let me throw in my two cents. First, isn't the very definition of Traveling (4-68-1): "Traveling occurs when a player holding the ball moves a foot or both feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits described in this rule." And, don't the prescribed limits have to do specifically with a pivot foot? So, if a pivot foot "doesn't exist", how can there be a travel?

As far as Snaq's second example re: the post player, wouldn't that be covered by Art. 2: "A player who catches the ball with both feet on the playing court may pivot, using either foot. When one foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot." So, as in baseball, there are no ties. One foot came off the ground first, therefore the other foot is the pivot (pick one), so a pivot foot has been established, and that play would be a travel.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Only because I'm sitting here trying to imagine a smiley face stuck up someone's a$$, let me throw in my two cents. First, isn't the very definition of Traveling (4-68-1): "Traveling occurs when a player holding the ball moves a foot or both feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits described in this rule." And, don't the prescribed limits have to do specifically with a pivot foot? So, if a pivot foot "doesn't exist", how can there be a travel?

As far as Snaq's second example re: the post player, wouldn't that be covered by Art. 2: "A player who catches the ball with both feet on the playing court may pivot, using either foot. When one foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot." So, as in baseball, there are no ties. One foot came off the ground first, therefore the other foot is the pivot (pick one), so a pivot foot has been established, and that play would be a travel.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I think we agree this play should be a travel, ...

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?