More garbage from the NFHS

[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.

[Raymond]

I say the logic of this entire conversation is faulty because the 2007-08 Interp considered the play an illegal dribble despite the fact that the ball never touched the playing court. How come you and Nevada didn't have a problem with that interpretation? It violated the principle of a dribble being a pushed/tapped/batted ball that hits the playing court.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I say the logic of this entire conversation is faulty because the 2007-08 Interp considered the play an illegal dribble despite the fact that the ball never touched the playing court. How come Nevada didn't have a problem with that interpretation?

I've got no argument with you there. Obviously this needs to be some type of violation. But traveling doesn't seem to fit by definition...seems to me they'd need to add another "exception" rule to make it valid.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I say the logic of this entire conversation is faulty because the 2007-08 Interp considered the play an illegal dribble despite the fact that the ball never touched the playing court. How come you and Nevada didn't have a problem with that interpretation? It violated the principle of a dribble being a pushed/tapped/batted ball that hits the playing court.

Because that is precisely what make this action an ILLEGAL dribble.
A LEGAL dribble is one that contacts the floor. That is part of the definiton of how to dribble. Since this ball didn't contact the floor, the player dribbled in an illegal manner. It's really that simple. Read rule 4-15-2 and you will see that this action violates one of the provisions of a DRIBBLE. On the contrary, there is no provision of the traveling rule which one can point to and correctly claim to have been violated by this action.

Also consult 4.15.4 Situation D part (a) and notice that the new Case Book ruling contradicts with this long standing Case Book play and is basically the same action.

BTW your 'lift the pivot foot and then start a dribble' situation does fall within the purview of "while holding the ball" and thus the guiding principle for traveling. The player lifted his pivot while holding the ball and certainly released the ball to begin a dribble while holding it. The violation takes place at that time. The official simply has to wait to confirm that the action of the player was indeed a dribble and not a pass. So the call by the official has to be delayed. That is very similar to an official waiting to see if contact put a player at a disadvantage before calling a foul. The foul still took place at the time of the contact, not when the official blew his whistle. In fact, if such a play happens late in an NCAA game with access to a courtside monitor the official will reset the clock to the time of the contact, not the time of the call.