More garbage from the NFHS

[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...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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...

In both cases it is not a travel until the ball is resecured/controlled by the ball handler.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In both cases it is not a travel until the ball is resecured/controlled by the ball handler.

Yes. I know. But that's not the point at all.

In one case the action that causes the travel occurs when the player is holding the ball. In the other, it doesn't. That's the entire purpose of this discussion...traveling (other than the exception for the getting up off the floor thing) happens when holding the ball.