Lifting pivot foot
 

Tell me if there is any situation at all where lifting your pivot is a violation? Am I correct in saying that if you lift your pivot foot, it's not a viloation until it returns to the floor?

Lifting the pivot foot is never a violation; but if you lift both feet, it's a violation when either foot returns to the floor.

Actually, there is a case under FIBA rules when lifting a foot causes a violation (assuming the player is not dribbling): if one foot is in the frontcourt and the other is in the backcourt, lifting the foot in the frontcourt is an "over and back" violation (returning the ball in the backcourt). However it's impossible that the foot in the frontcourt is pivot (it might become pivot upon lifting the other one).

Ciao

Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released to start a dribble. NFHS rule 4-44-4b.

Wrong. The pivot foot may not be lifted to start a dribble. Of course you can lift your other foot to start a dribble. If not players would have to figure out some funky moves to attack a closeout.

In NFHS you can lift your pivot foor with no problem (as long as it does not retunr to the floor) with the exception of starting a dribble. Correct?

That's correct; but the violation is not in lifting the pivot foot, it's starting the dribble after having lifted the pivot foot.

Ciao

Wrong.

Lifting the pivot foot and then starting a dribble is a traveling violation.

Traveling is moving the pivot foot outside prescribed limits.

The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.

Therefore, lifting the pivot foot in this situation is the violation. It simply isn't called until the dribble is released.

So in FEEBLE rules, a player who is straddling the division line is in the FC? :confused:

If a player ends his dribble with his right foot in the FC and then makes his final step with his left foot in the BC, the right foot is not the pivot? :confused:

I don't think you know what you're talking about. :)

Lifting the pivot foot and using it to kick the opposing coach would be a violation if the coach was standing OOB.

However, I wouldn't call it. :p

This got a little complicated, as these situations often do.

NFHS:

When a player is going to pass or shot - and an official or coach says that's a travel and the reason used is that they lifted their pivot foot. That would be wrong.

If the pivot foot is lifted before the start of the dribble (ball out of hand) that would be a violation. Other than that lifting the pivot foot off the ground is not a violation until the pivot foot returns to the ground if the ball is still in possesion.

Thanks to all.

Who Ya Gonna Call ??? Mythbusters ...
 

The traveling rule is one of the most misunderstood rules in basketball. To start a dribble, the ball must be released before the pivot foot is lifted. On a pass or a shot, the pivot foot may be lifted, but may not return to the floor before the ball is released.

That is not correct. The violation is not for lifting the pivot foot. The violation is for starting a dribble after the pivot foot is lifted. Using your logic you could say lifting the pivot foot is a violation but is just isn't called until the pivot foot is returned to the floor. In both situations lifting the pivot foot is not a violation; what occurs after the pivot foot is lifted is the violation.

I cannot agree (see LDUB's reply): it's a violation if you start a dribble after you've lifted the pivot foot. Lifting the pivot foot is not "per se" a violation.

Yes.

It's already a violation. If you end the dribble with a foot in the frontcourt the ball has frontcourt status, because when the dribble has ended the "three point rule" doesn't hold any more; putting down the other foot in the backcourt is a violation.

I know what I'm talking about. I believe that case would be a violation also under Fed rules.

Ciao

With regard to the traveling violation which occurs when the pivot is lifted before the start of the dribble, the violation takes place, specifically, when?

According to an argument in another thread, my view of this will be different from that of almost everybody else.

Then I guess the rule book is wrong, since that's were I quoted from.

The violation occurs because the pivot foot was moved outside prescribed limits.

So if a dribbler ends his dribble while straddling the division line, it's a violation in FEEBLE Rules? That's just stupid.

No, you don't and no it isn't. Under NFHS, when dribbling, a player is not in the FC until all three points are in the FC.

Me thinks you have your FC and BC status mixed up.

Put it in this way: is there any situation when the official calls a travel just because a player lifts their pivot foot? I can't see any. (And that was the original question.) I quote again from you:
Does the violation come from lifting the pivot foot? No: it's a consequence of something done after that.

That's your reading of my message. There's no such rule in FIBA and a player can be straddling the division line without violating. All the rule say is that this player is both in the BC and the FC (and it's cause of problems, in my opinion, but that's not the question). This player can lift the foot in the BC, but not the foot in the FC. There are three cases: (1) the pivot foot has not been established by the rules (stationary player receiving the ball, or who has put both feet simultaneously on the ground); (2) the pivot foot has been established by the rules; (3) no foot can be pivot (jump stop).

In case (2) the foot in the FC can never be pivot, because when the pivot foot is established by the rule the player has ended their dribble; if the pivot foot is in the FC, putting down the other foot in the BC is a violation, because the ball has already FC status.

In all cases the player can lift the foot in the BC, be it the pivot or not; of course, a dribble can no more be started if that foot was pivot.

Is a player a dribbler when they have ended their dribble? I dare say no. If the dribble ends when the player has their right foot in the frontcourt and their left foot in the air, are you sure the three point rule is still in force?

Ciao