|
|||
I think in a case like this, we must, as best we can, deal with what we see right in front of us, not let the player be bailed out by a hypothetical might have been.
Another example comes to mind. Airborne player is fouled, then ball is released and swatted out of bounds by the defense. He should never get two shots. This might have been a pass.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
In the situations regarding the pass/travel, no violation has occurred because of the player dropping the ball. There is no rules justification to support calling a travel in this situation. Unlike the airborne shooter, there is also no judgment involved in this ruling. Simply by rule, it is not a violation until the player touches the ball again. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
1. The definition of an airborne shooter says that the player has released the ball on a try for goal and is yet to return to the floor. Prior to the release of the try there isn't an airborne shooter. So you are wrong to write "an airborne shooter has been fouled" because in the previous post the foul occurred before the release. No airborne shooter at that time. 2. "That means, in your judgment, the offensive player was fouled while in the act of shooting." No, the term airborne shooter does not mean that. It has a specific definition in the NFHS rules book, which I summarized in #1. 3. It is a judgment call by the official to determine whether or not a player was in the act of shooting if he still has the ball, but there is no judgment involved if an airborne player has released the ball and has yet to return to the floor. The player BY DEFINITION is considered in the act of shooting. An official would not be permitted BY RULE to call a common foul against a defender who fouled such a player. Unlike as you claim, there is no judgment involved in such a call. 4. You need to learn the definition of a dribble. It is "ball movement caused by a player in control who bats or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times." No part of the definition states that the player has to touch the ball again after the initial push to the floor for it to be a dribble. He may or may not. What if he tries to touch it again and misses? 5. Given how a dribble is defined in #4, your statement that the violation scenario requires no judgment is totally false. The official must determine if the player initially has control and must also decide if the ball was dropped or fumbled. If dropped, the dropping of the ball may certainly be deemed a dribble by the official according to the above definition. 6. The rules support for the traveling violation is 4-44-3c, which simply says, "The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble." There is no written requirement that the ball be touched again in the rules book. You claim that there is. Please show us where it appears. The current wording of two plays in the case book include "and touches it first after it bounces" in one and "and dribbles" in the other. However, we do not have a case play in which the player fails to touch the ball again, so we know for sure what the call is if the player does that, but the NFHS has not provided a definitive ruling for the situation posed in this thread. 7. The truth is that this is a gray area in the rules. We have had this discussion before. Some would wait until the ball is touched again to call the violation, others state that PER THE RULES a second touch is not necessary. |
|
|||
Quote:
Anyway, I know A.R. 106 speaks specifically to the situation: ...when A1 voluntarily drops the ball before returning to the playing court and then touches the ball before it is touched by another player, A1 has committed a travel violation since the pivot foot was lifted before the ball was released to start a dribble. (Rule 4-37 and 4-70.4.b) If there is no distinction why didn't they just say "...when A1 voluntarily drops the ball before returning to the playing court A1 has committed a travel violation since the pivot foot was lifted before the ball was released to start a dribble. "? I have a question. If A1 is standing with both feet firmly planted to the floor and A1 voluntarily drops the ball, and the ball is just bouncing in front of him, are you going to grant his HC a time-out during this period of time?
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR Last edited by Raymond; Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:39am. |
|
|||
Quote:
Is the above player, after allowing the ball to "just bounce in front of him," allowed to catch the ball and then "voluntarily drop it" again? No. Because the first drop was the start of a dribble
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
Player standing all alone, having not yet used a dribble, voluntarily drops the ball to the floor. Are you granting a time-out?
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
Yes, grant the timeout.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
||||
I wouldn't, but it has nothing to do with your decision on the pass/dribble situation. At most, this would be an interrupted dribble, IMO. It may be right next to him, but if he's allowing multiple bounces between touches, he's not in control of that ball.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Do they? What is the rule? Isn't that what we are debating now?
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
||||
Quote:
Which is why i said "but it has nothing to do with your decision on the pass/dribble situation."
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. Last edited by Adam; Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:31am. |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
How is it different? In both plays, you have a player purposefully putting the ball where only he has the ability to touch it first and no teammate is in the immediate vicinity. How is it different?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Rules citation? Is the ball "loose"? Has it gotten "away" from the dribbler?
Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:46am. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Travel or Not? | curtstrouth | Basketball | 10 | Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:56pm |
Where did the OBS occur? | UmpireErnie | Softball | 8 | Mon May 23, 2005 10:24am |
When is getting up a travel? | CYO Butch | Basketball | 23 | Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:28am |
A travel or not a travel | RefJeff | Basketball | 4 | Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:19pm |
No Travel, Just Kidding Travel Kas v Arz | fletch_irwin_m | Basketball | 49 | Tue Apr 08, 2003 06:23pm |