2009-10 POEs explained

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This would not be two steps. It would be one step multiple times.

But that's not what the rule says, is it? And what is the definition of "step"? Is it in Rule 4 anywhere? Is it anywhere in Rules 1-10?

I'm not picking on you directly, because in theory we agree. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of making a statement like the committee did that has no rule basis behind it, and does nothing but confuse the issue more for the "less informed" (read: coaches, players, fans).

Why not stick with the real rule: Travelling is moving a foot or feet beyond the prescribed limits. Know what the pivot foot is, and what can or cannot be done with it. Unfortunately, none of the rule-prescribed limits has anything to do with the "number of steps".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But that's not what the rule says, is it? And what is the definition of "step"? Is it in Rule 4 anywhere? Is it anywhere in Rules 1-10?

I'm not picking on you directly, because in theory we agree. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of making a statement like the committee did that has no rule basis behind it, and does nothing but confuse the issue more for the "less informed" (read: coaches, players, fans).

Why not stick with the real rule: Travelling is moving a foot or feet beyond the prescribed limits. Know what the pivot foot is, and what can or cannot be done with it. Unfortunately, none of the rule-prescribed limits has anything to do with the "number of steps".

This whole thing revolves around the fact that there is no definition of step in the rule book. Therefore, when I say step, I am no longer speaking basketball rules, but plain (sorta) English. When I refer to taking two steps, I refer to a player in control of the ball starting with one or both feet on the floor, then progressing ahead with one foot followed by the other. When that second foot hits the floor, if this player is still holding the ball, this is not a legal play. Period.

The condensed version: Two steps while holding the ball is illegal.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This whole thing revolves around the fact that there is no definition of step in the rule book. Therefore, when I say step, I am no longer speaking basketball rules, but plain (sorta) English. When I refer to taking two steps, I refer to a player in control of the ball starting with one or both feet on the floor, then progressing ahead with one foot followed by the other. When that second foot hits the floor, if this player is still holding the ball, this is not a legal play. Period.

The condensed version: Two steps while holding the ball is illegal.

So, in plain (sorta) English, what do you say to a coach who wants a travel called on this play: A1 catches the ball in the air, the first foot comes down, followed by the second foot. Perfectly legal play, by rule. However, coach says there were two steps taken (first foot landed, followed by the second foot landing). So, how will you explain the difference between a "landing" and a "step"? How will you explain the first foot landing is a "landing", while the second foot landing is a "step", since both feet were off the ground at the time of the catch? If you consider both feet landing, then the player is allowed a step, correct? Well, it depends. If the first foot is lifted and replaced without passing or shooting (1st step?), that is a travel. If the second foot that landed is lifted and replaced before passing or shooting (1st step?), that is a legal pivot.

Meanwhile your partner has left the floor because you're trying to explain to the coach the difference between steps, landings, non-steps, semi-landings, whatever. None of these terms have anything to do with the actual rule. Your condensed version (and the committee's statement) is simply an incorrect over-simplification that doesn't have anything to do with the rules.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, in plain (sorta) English, what do you say to a coach who wants a travel called on this play: A1 catches the ball in the air, the first foot comes down, followed by the second foot. Perfectly legal play, by rule. However, coach says there were two steps taken (first foot landed, followed by the second foot landing).

I say: "No, there were not."

So, how will you explain the difference between a "landing" and a "step"?
How will you explain the first foot landing is a "landing", while the second foot landing is a "step", since both feet were off the ground at the time of the catch?

In order to take a step, the player must start with one or both feet on the floor. In the case of a player catching the ball while airborne, obviously he must land before this can take place. Traveling has nothing to do with an airborne player. The illegal part happens after the landing.

Your condensed version (and the committee's statement) is simply an incorrect over-simplification that doesn't have anything to do with the rules.

is not


Now you say: Is too!

[M&M Guy]

Is too.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I say: "No, there were not."

Coach says: "What rule do you base it on?"

Originally Posted by just another ref

In order to take a step, the player must start with one or both feet on the floor.

And doesn't every player start with both feet on the floor, at some point? Even His Airness started with his feet on the floor.

In the whole rule on traveling, 4-44, the word "step" is only used once: "If one foot is on the floor, it is a pivot when the other foot touches in a step". So, if that same other foot is lifted and touched "in a step" more than once, it is a travel, correct?

We can do the "is not", "is too" all day. My point is the committee did not do us a favor by making that statement. It is a lot easier to simply use the rule to explain why a play is a travel or not: "The pivot foot was replaced before the pass." "The pivot foot was lifted before the dribble started." There was no pivot foot allowed on that jump-stop." You're on a lot firmer ground quoting actual rules than trying to make stuff up that isn't in the rule book.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Coach says: "What rule do you base it on?"

Whenever a coach questions a no-call for an alleged travel, I ask the coach "what foot did you have for the pivot." 95% of the time they can't answer that, thus that conversation has come to an end. No need discussing a travel if coach can't identify the pivot.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, in plain (sorta) English, what do you say to a coach who wants a travel called on this play: A1 catches the ball in the air, the first foot comes down, followed by the second foot. Perfectly legal play, by rule. However, coach says there were two steps taken ........

Originally Posted by just another ref

I say: "No, there were not."



In order to take a step, the player must start with one or both feet on the floor. In the case of a player catching the ball while airborne, obviously he must land before this can take place. Traveling has nothing to do with an airborne player. The illegal part happens after the landing.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Coach says: "What rule do you base it on?"

4-44-2: If both feet are off the floor and the player lands on one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch is the pivot.

It is the pivot when the other foot touches in a step.


Next question

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-44-2: If both feet are off the floor and the player lands on one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch is the pivot.

It is the pivot when the other foot touches in a step.


Next question

Regarding the step with the other foot - are you saying the second step with that other foot would be illegal?

Originally Posted by just another ref

The condensed version: Two steps while holding the ball is illegal.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, in plain (sorta) English, what do you say to a coach who wants a travel called on this play: A1 catches the ball in the air, the first foot comes down, followed by the second foot. Perfectly legal play, by rule. However, coach says there were two steps taken (first foot landed, followed by the second foot landing). So, how will you explain the difference between a "landing" and a "step"? How will you explain the first foot landing is a "landing", while the second foot landing is a "step", since both feet were off the ground at the time of the catch? If you consider both feet landing, then the player is allowed a step, correct? Well, it depends. If the first foot is lifted and replaced without passing or shooting (1st step?), that is a travel. If the second foot that landed is lifted and replaced before passing or shooting (1st step?), that is a legal pivot.

Meanwhile your partner has left the floor because you're trying to explain to the coach the difference between steps, landings, non-steps, semi-landings, whatever. None of these terms have anything to do with the actual rule. Your condensed version (and the committee's statement) is simply an incorrect over-simplification that doesn't have anything to do with the rules.

"Coach, It's not two steps. You can't have a "step" until at least one foot has landed. The first foot was his "landing", the second was a "step". Completely legal."

That would be enough to confuse/infuriate 90% of coaches, so what happens with the next foot that was lifted will go largely unnoticed.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But that's not what the rule says, is it? And what is the definition of "step"? Is it in Rule 4 anywhere? Is it anywhere in Rules 1-10?

I'm not picking on you directly, because in theory we agree. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of making a statement like the committee did that has no rule basis behind it, and does nothing but confuse the issue more for the "less informed" (read: coaches, players, fans).

Why not stick with the real rule: Travelling is moving a foot or feet beyond the prescribed limits. Know what the pivot foot is, and what can or cannot be done with it. Unfortunately, none of the rule-prescribed limits has anything to do with the "number of steps".

I'm now going to sit back and let you champion this cause for me.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm now going to sit back and let you champion this cause for me.

Aw, c'mon, can't we do it tag-team wrestling style? I'm starting to get a little winded doing all the work while you sit back back in the expensive ring-side seats.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Aw, c'mon, can't we do it tag-team wrestling style? I'm starting to get a little winded doing all the work while you sit back back in the expensive ring-side seats.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Drop that popcorn - TAG - you're now in the ring.

I'm going home to get a brownpop and start the weekend.