When does travel occur?

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Smart a$$ We use FIBA, so no lame bailouts by calling time out.



Let's change the scenario a tiny bit.

Your guy does the same thing, but instead of "dropping" the ball, he forces the ball down, aka starts a dribble.

Violation? Yup - for moving pivot foot before dribbling.

The two plays are the same.

So you're going with the travel right away. That's how I called it today in a game but then I wasn't sure if it was right.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

That's true, but what I think the others were pointing out was the black/white nature of the language being used, and the idea that waiting to see the whole play is desirable.

I think we all know the play Jay had - and that he got it right.

Actually, based on this post from Jay, I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by Jay R

So you're going with the travel right away. That's how I called it today in a game but then I wasn't sure if it was right.

If he called the violation before A1 retouched the ball, I don't think he got it right. Will it matter in the game? Probably not 99% of the time, but in plays like jar brings up just above this post, it would matter and I think jar would get it wrong.

[just another ref]

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.

[JPNY25]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Except in that case, an airborne shooter has been fouled. That means, in your judgment, the offensive player was fouled while in the act of shooting. In other words, the foul actually occurs. The judgment is whether or not he was in the act of shooting

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JPNY25

Except in that case, an airborne shooter has been fouled. That means, in your judgment, the offensive player was fouled while in the act of shooting. In other words, the foul actually occurs. The judgment is whether or not he was in the act of shooting.

Exactly. Judgment is used to say this was indeed a shot, and the appropriate penalty is enforced. Using the logic from above, how are we to know that this perceived shot was not instead an alley oop pass to a teammate who failed to make an anticipated cut.

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.

Why is this situation different? If there is no teammate nearby to conceivably receive this "pass" then it is logical to judge this as the start of a dribble. A dribble is defined as pushing the ball to the floor, "once or several times."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JPNY25

Except in that case, an airborne shooter has been fouled. That means, in your judgment, the offensive player was fouled while in the act of shooting. In other words, the foul actually occurs. The judgment is whether or not he was in the act of shooting

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.

There is so much that is incorrect in this post, but I'll try to go through it and set the poster straight. He is probably new to discussing rules and definitions.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...
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.

Guess you have given up on keeping this discussion halfway intelligent.

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

Not sure, I'd have to see the play.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not sure, I'd have to see the play.

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

Why are you not sure?


Player standing all alone, having not yet used a dribble, voluntarily drops the ball to the floor.

Are you granting a time-out?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why are you not sure?


Player standing all alone, having not yet used a dribble, voluntarily drops the ball to the floor.

Are you granting a time-out?

If he is standing all alone, and the ball is bouncing beside him, why not?
Yes, grant the timeout.