More garbage from the NFHS

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It is also a travel to jump in the air with the ball (IE: jump shot) then drop it to the floor and retrieve.

So your assertion is not true.

Actually, that play fits Nevada's assertion. In your play, the travel is for moving the pivot foot before beginning a dribble. It just couldn't be called until you knew that the player dribbled. So, the travel occurred while the player was still holding the ball, but you couldn't verify the violation until you were certain it was a dribble.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Actually, that play fits Nevada's assertion. In your play, the travel is for moving the pivot foot before beginning a dribble. It just couldn't be called until you knew that the player dribbled. So, the travel occurred while the player was still holding the ball, but you couldn't verify the violation until you were certain it was a dribble.

Which is essentially the same reason it's a travel to toss the ball in the air, take 2 steps, then catch it. You can't verify it until the player retrieves the ball.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Which is essentially the same reason it's a travel to toss the ball in the air, take 2 steps, then catch it. You can't verify it until the player retrieves the ball.

Except that pivot foot moves after the ball is tossed in the air. Therefore, the reason for the travel is that the pivot foot moved when the player didn't have the ball...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Except that pivot foot moves after the ball is tossed in the air. Therefore, the reason for the travel is that the pivot foot moved when the player didn't have the ball...

But just like in the jump shot scenario, it is not a travel until the player regains control of the ball.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

But just like in the jump shot scenario, it is not a travel until the player regains control of the ball.

Sure. But the point would be...why, by definition, is it a travel?

In your scenario, nobody would argue that the player dropping the ball after being airborne, then landing and grabbing the ball would be the same as "holding" the ball. But that's the argument you have to make about the original play - that tossing the ball in the air, moving, and then catching it is equal to holding the ball.

In fact, the only similarity between the two is that you can't determine legality until the player secures the ball again. The rationale for the travel is completely different.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Sure. But the point would be...why, by definition, is it a travel?

In your scenario, nobody would argue that the player dropping the ball after being airborne, then landing and grabbing the ball would be the same as "holding" the ball. But that's the argument you have to make about the original play - that tossing the ball in the air, moving, and then catching it is equal to holding the ball.

In fact, the only similarity between the two is that you can't determine legality until the player secures the ball again. The rationale for the travel is completely different.

My posts are addressing this statement by the OP:
I don't care for this alteration because it contradicts the principle* that a player cannot travel when he/she isn't holding the ball as the rule says--"while holding the ball..."

And in each scenario it is the result of the action after the ball is released that determines the travel.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And in each scenario it is the result of the action after the ball is released that determines the travel.

I disagree. In the original scenario, it is the result of the action after the ball is released that determines the travel. In the second scenario, it is the action that happens before the ball is released (the picking up of the pivot foot before dribbling) that determines the travel.

The only thing that causes us to wait until after the ball is re-secured is that we have to determine what action the original release of the ball was...