Closely Guarded Dilemma

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

but this is an other discussion. for a new thread.
Since I could ask what about momentum... joking.... an other thread perhaps

It's analogy to illustrate the difference between what is sufficient and what is required.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's analogy to illustrate the difference between what is sufficient and what is required.

Ok let me ask you this then, when player A1 jumps in the air and catches the ball in the air and lands on one foot (the other has not touched the floor), has a pivot foot been established?

Unfortunately sufficiency is not always clear.
The rules are. if we keep them simple without our interpretation

This is really a subject for an other thread

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Ok let me ask you this then, when player A1 jumps in the air and catches the ball in the air and lands on one foot (the other has not touched the floor), has a pivot foot been established?

Unfortunately sufficiency is not always clear.
The rules are. if we keep them simple without our interpretation

This is really a subject for an other thread

It's not a subject for another thread, because it's clearly to demonstrate the logic of differentiating between what is sufficient and what is required.

The answer to your first question is "maybe." If the player stops moving upon that landing, then yes, the pivot has been established. If he jumps off that foot and lands on both feet simultaneously, then neither foot is the pivot.

My point was a player may be called for traveling by merely dragging his pivot foot (that is sufficient), but he may also be called for traveling even when his pivot foot doesn't drag (such as the example of when there is no pivot foot established) and he breaks other rules of movement.

To claim, "The rules are. if we keep them simple without our interpretation" while at the same time making an inference from case plays is pretty inconsistent. You're making an interpretation.

The case plays are supplements to the rules, not rules themselves. The fact remains that neither the rules nor the case plays state LGP is "required" for CG to be in play. You're infering it based on a case play that says CG should be started since LGP was established. There is no case play or rule that says CG should not be started because LGP wasn't established.