Pivot foot

[Adam]

Agreed. This once in a lifetime play is legal. What about the player who catches the ball, standing still, on one foot, then jumps to both feet? That might be the play I had in my head originally when I read the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agreed. This once in a lifetime play is legal. What about the player who catches the ball, standing still, on one foot, then jumps to both feet? That might be the play I had in my head originally when I read the rule.

I'd still have a hard time calling a travel. How many times are you going to see a player standing still on one foot. And define standing still...for how long? How still? I'd say that if a foot is in the air, the player is, for all practial purposes, moving.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'd still have a hard time calling a travel. How many times are you going to see a player standing still on one foot. And define standing still...for how long? How still? I'd say that if a foot is in the air, the player is, for all practial purposes, moving.

Ever seen "The Karate Kid"?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agreed. This once in a lifetime play is legal. What about the player who catches the ball, standing still, on one foot, then jumps to both feet? That might be the play I had in my head originally when I read the rule.

Unless you can state the illegal manner in which the player holding the ball moved his feet, the play is legal.

Don't penalize strange, unusual, or ugly. Save the whistle for illegal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Unless you can state the illegal manner in which the player holding the ball moved his feet, the play is legal.

Don't penalize strange, unusual, or ugly. Save the whistle for illegal.

Ok, here's the rationale for rhetorical purposes.

The rule makes the extra allowance for the jump stop who catches the ball while moving. Without that allowance, the pivot would be established by a player catching the ball with one foot on the floor.

Since the rule says "while moving," it could be presumed that a player who catches the ball stationary cannot take advantage of the "jump stop" provision.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ok, here's the rationale for rhetorical purposes.

The rule makes the extra allowance for the jump stop who catches the ball while moving. Without that allowance, the pivot would be established by a player catching the ball with one foot on the floor.

Since the rule says "while moving," it could be presumed that a player who catches the ball stationary cannot take advantage of the "jump stop" provision.

I believe that you are over-analyzing this one. It seems that you are too hung up on "while moving" and not giving enough weight to the "may stop" part of the rule.

Do you have a rule which states that a player receiving the ball with one foot on the floor and the other not touching has a established a pivot?

Here's the definition of pivot:
4-33 PIVOT
A pivot takes place when a player who is holding the ball steps once, or more
than once, in any direction with the same foot while the other foot, called the pivot
foot, is kept at its point of contact with the floor.

I don't see that action having happened.

Here's the part of the traveling rule on establishing a pivot:
4-44-2 . . . A player, who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop,
and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. If both feet are off the floor and the player lands:
1. Simultaneously on both feet, either foot may be the pivot.
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch is the pivot.
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land
on both. Neither foot can be a pivot in this case.
b. If one foot is on the floor:
1. It is the pivot when the other foot touches in a step.
2. The player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both.
Neither foot can be a pivot in this case.

Once the player stops, what difference does it make whether he was previously moving or not?
I see no time-frame given in 4-44-2 (b)2. It simply says that the player may jump off that foot. Perhaps we should think of it as rewarding good balance, if a player can hold his position on one foot for that long.

[ILMalti]

Ok so the rules seem to indicate that unless both feet touch the ground it then and only then can we see what foot is the pivot and or if there can be a pivot foot.

ART 1 : :... catches the ball with both feet on the floor may pivot using either foot (see nevadarefs 4.33 PIVOT rule description)
ART2 If both feet off the floor
a.1 player lands on both feet simultaneously either foot pivot
a.2 one foot then the other ... (both feet on teh floor) ,,,,
a.3 one foot then jumps no pivot foot available

b one foot on the floor,
b.1 becomes pivot when other foot touches in a step
b.2 same as a.3 (except one foot is on floor for starters.)

ART 3 talks about what can be done after a pivot foot has been establishing . ART2 still is the governing article for establishing pivot foot.

ART 4 describes what can be done when Art 2.a.3 and Art 2.b.2 apply.


So if you read Nevadarefs post in conjunction with this, we can conclude that "coming to a stop" is prior to establishing a pivot foot as in ART2
Art3 and Art4 and ART5 really do not have any description as to how to establish a pivot foot but only describe what you can do once ART2 has been applied