More garbage from the NFHS
 

E-mail them and tell them the garbage...

SECTION 15 DRIBBLE
ART. 1 . . . A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

that is from the definitions and it is two years old I don't have the current book here to see but unless they have drastically changed this possibly added more that interpretation is in direct conflict with the definition of a dribble -

I would say that you have to have dribbled to have an illegal dribble since the definition requires you to push the ball to the floor you threw it up and over someone not allowing it to hit the floor I have a hard time calling an illegal dribble there, I would like to see some clarification and reason behind that interpretation.


ART. 3 . . . After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
b. If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
c. The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.

Above being from the definition of traveling and that pretty much describes the foot movement required for traveling which occured here so I am really confused.

Again this is from an older book but I do not recal major editorial changes to traveling the last couple of years.

To be consistent, if it were really an illegal dribble, both (a) and (b) would be an illegal dribble since the only difference is between them is the movement of the feet (which is not relevant to the legality of a dribble) and not how the ball was handled.

A player tossing the ball into the air and catching it without it touching anything else is effectively considered to be holding the ball. Thus, it becomes a travel to move the pivot foot during such action.

Two, Two, Two Mints In One, A Candy Mint, And A Breath Mint ...
 

The reason that palming, also known as, carrying, is a violation can be twofold. First, if the ball handler palms/carries the ball while moving, it's a travel. Second, if the ball handler palms/carries the ball while standing still, its an illegal dribble (double dribble). Two different violations, with one signal.

So a player can't catch his own airball? :eek:

Depends. Was it a legitimate try? Or was he just tossing the ball to himself? Different scenarios; different results.

Is this really a big deal?

Only if one is trying to teach newer officials about traveling.

When the rules follow certain principles, they can easily be taught and remembered. When they are unpredictable and capricious, they have to be memorized and are difficult to recall properly. :(

The NFHS is failing to understand that and heading down a dangerous path.

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.

You're right. It can't be travelling, because travelling is defined as "moving the pivot foot in excess of prescribe limits while holding the ball" (paraphrased -- I'm away from my books.)

It also can't be an illegal dribble, because a dribble is defines as "batting the ball to the floor one or more times."

So, it must be a legal play.

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.

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...

Dangerous path? Is someone going to die as a result? :D

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.

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.

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...

I said tossing....not shooting. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

It doesn't become a dribble until the player resecures the ball. It doesn't become a violation until that point.

If a player lifts his/her pivot and stands there for 5 seconds then dribbles you can't say the violation occurred 5 seconds ago when the pivot was lifted. It became a violation when he/she dribbled.

If a player tosses the ball in the air, runs, then catches it then they never relinquished player control; and they lifted and reset their pivot foot, so it's a travel to me. That's the spirit of the rule, at least IMO.

By what rule?

NCAA 5-10
The game clock and shot clock, if running, shall be stopped when an
official:
Art. 1. Signals:
a. A foul.
b. A held ball.
c. A violation.

Sometimes can't tell if it is a dribble or a pass until we see what happens next. That doesn't change the fact that is a dribble when it is released from the hand.

Basically we are just arguing semantics. No big deal to me really as long as we call the violation when it occurs.

Never relinquished player control? How sure are you about that one? ;)

By this rule!

2-13-3 (c)

Determine whether a foul occurred before the reading of zeros on
the game clock at the end of the first half, or at the end of the second
half/extra period only when necessary to determine the outcome of a
game. When it is determined that the foul occurred before the reading of zeros on the game clock, the official is permitted to put the exact time back on the game clock as to when the foul was committed.

4-12-1 . . . A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

Sorry, but if you don't consider the toss to be a dribble, then the action doesn't meet the definiton of player control.

If you do consider the toss to be a dribble, then there is player control, but a player cannot travel during a dribble!

Seems that your position is untenable. ;)

I don't consider the toss to be a dribble as it never hit the court, referee, or opposing team's backboard. Remember I'm the one disagreed with your definition earlier that this was an illegal dribble. It's a travel.

If a player tosses the ball in the air and catches it then it is not a shot, pass, nor dribble. If a player stands in one spot and tosses the ball up in the air a few times are you can saying he used up his dribble?

How much do you know about the history of the game? Do you know what an air dribble was?

Don't remember that one. But I don't doubt there was such an animal. Was it legal or illegal?

Made legal in 1892, but I don't know the exact year that it was taken out.

BTW dribbling on the floor wasn't legalized until 1898. :eek:

There is a good description of the air dribble on page 20 of the NFHS Basketball Handbook.

"But abuses became evident almost at once. Instead of bouncing the ball on the floor, clever players began to tap the ball upward and tapping it again as it came down in what later was called an "air dribble." Those adept at the trick would tap the ball only a few inches above their finger tips while advancing at full speed all the way into scoring position. There was usually no effective way of stopping this maneuver short of fouling. Soon there were rules limiting the dribble to one air dribble and preventing the resumption of any type of dribble once the player had ended his/her dribble by holding the ball in one or both hands."

The point is that this action has historically been considered a dribble. So that's why it is properly an illegal dribble violation. It pays to know your history. ;)

Those Who Forget History Are Doomed To Repeat It ...
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. spearheaded the effort to get this rule changed.

New here, so just an opinion from the new guy:

Section 4-44 (traveling) pretty well describes many positions where the pivot foot cannot be lifted prior to starting a dribble. In the OP, if the ball hits the floor (close to the dribbler, or 15 feet away and over his opponent's head) before he lifts his pivot foot, it is a legal dribble. We therefore have to wait and see if his pass over the opponent's head is a pass to himself which he catches, i.e., traveling, or if he let's it hit the floor, and then resumes a legal dribble by batting it again to the floor...a legal dribble. I think that 4-44-articles 1-5 describe that well enough.....

From the new guy's humble opinion....Bishopcolle

4-44-3c: The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released to start a dribble.

When the ball hits the floor is not relevant.

Nor can a player pass to himself, by definition.

Thank you.

Very true, and I totally agree....you are spot on, as they say....I guess what I meant to say is that when he releases the ball over the head of the opponent and THEN lifts his pivot foot, we need to see if the ball bounces and starts the dribble or if he catches it, making that a traveling violation....Good catch Just Another Ref!

The bottom line is this is a way over thought issue. This is not something that is likely going to happen in the first place. This is not something that you will even see attempted. And trying to make an issue out of a very minor or unusual "conflict" is just futile. Then again, what else is new? ;)

Even if you call a travel or do not call a travel in these situations, no one is going to know you got it right or wrong unless they really spend the time to look up a very unusual situation. We know (well not everyone here) that is not going to be from coaches. They think anything unusual is a traveling even when it is supported by rule (e.g. Jump Stops).

Peace