When does travel occur?
 

This may have been discussed before but I couldn't find it by searching. A player jumps up to shoot and realizes that his shot will be blocked. He drops the ball to the floor. Has he traveled? Or does he have to touch the ball again to travel?

From Your Friendly Neighborhood Mythbusters ...
 

These situations should cover your question, and similar questions:

When an airborne player keeps control of an attempted shot that is blocked and is unable to release the ball and returns to the floor with it, that player has not traveled; it is a held ball.

If, in this situation, the shooter loses control of the ball because of the block, then this is simply a blocked shot and play continues.

If, in this situation, the defender simply touches the ball, and the airborne shooter returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation.

When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and picks up the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.

We have an old thread on this. I'm 100% certain of that.

Others disagree, but he doesn't have to pick it up/touch it again to meet the definition of a dribble.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly ...
 

I believe he does. Otherwise it could be interpreted as a pass, and you can legally lift your pivot foot first, and then make a pass. Maybe it's an ugly pass, but it's still a pass.

The NFHS case play is worded as Billy has written.

This is the way it's always been explained to me: once you jump, you have two choices, provided a defender does not touch the ball - pass or shoot - before you can touch/hold the ball again.

Request time-out? ;)

He did neither. He simply dropped the ball at his feet with no teammate in the vicinity.

Smart a$$ :D 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 and re-gaining possession, 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.

Really, so when the ball is just bouncing around on the floor after he drops it you are saying its a travel?

I've NEVER read or heard that.

Could Be A Long Wait ???
 

Or wait for the horn to sound that ends the period?

Agreed, I'll wait for the player to touch it first before calling this travel; there's no debate then about what happened. Dropping the ball becomes a pass if another player touches it.

Bounce passes often look identical to a dribble, and sometimes the only way to tell is to wait and see what happens next. "See the whole play" applies here.

Yeah for sure, I was talking specifically about the obvious play where we know it is not a pass. I think Jay was referring to that as well.

How do you know it's not a pass? Because no one else is nearby? Maybe he was expecting a teammate to come in and the teammate cut a different direction? Maybe he knows he can't dribble so he's throwing a pass into a spot hoping a teammate spots it before a defender? My point is, I'm never calling this until the offensive player touches the ball first.

Additionally, you don't call it because it's not a violation if the ball is justing bouncing/laying on the floor.

Guys, you're picking nits.

A1 jumps for a shot but doesn't shoot.

Realizing his error, he (a) drops the ball to the floor and re-catches it, (b) pushes ball to floor to start a dribble.

I've got a violation in both cases. That's what I was referring to.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

You're clear, but I understand you to mean that if he pushes it to the floor and does not proceed to touch it, you're calling the violation. I'm not, because that play is just as easily a pass waiting for a recipient. If you're saying you'll wait in both cases until the player touches the ball again, I agree.

You need to re-read the OP.

There's a BIG difference between what you are describing and what the OP is describing. I would not describe the difference as a "nit".

The play you describe above is not being questioned by anybody.

I am, because I'm wondering at which point he calls the violation in B.
And, Canuck is on the record in post 10 as saying the two plays are the same.

+1

Whatever. Again, sorry I wasn't clearer the first time. I went back and clarified.

When a player releases the ball, it is a judgment call what it is. This is not a shot. A pass is defined as "to another player," so therefore, in my judgment, if he drops the ball straight to the floor, it is not a pass. This leaves only a dribble. Violation when it hits the floor.

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.

Waiting to see the whole play may be desirable, but may open another can of worms.

A1 and B1 are the only two players in the picture. A1 goes up to shoot, but B1 is up there waiting for him. A1, realizing the shot will be blocked, drops the ball to the floor. When B1 comes down, he lunges for the loose ball, but knocks it out of bounds. You gonna give the ball back to A because this might have been a pass? I'm not.

I am. Because until A1 touches the ball again he has not violated. He has simply dropped the ball. So, if A1 drops the ball and A2 picks it up you are going call a violation? And that violation would be what, "dropping the ball while in mid-air"? Sorry, that, in and of itself, is not a violation.

I abosutely am going to go with the OOB call on this. Like I said earlier, a players pass to an open spot all the time, assuming or hoping a teammate will get to it. I'm going to assume A1 knows the rule and isn't going to touch it until he proves me wrong by touching it.

This goes back to, "if you don't know for sure that it's a violation, it's not." If there's any doubt, let it go; see the whole play.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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?

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?

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

Look, my point is simple, but let me start by stating I agree with Nevada that the rules support is there if you want to call this violation prior to A1 retouching the ball. Whether the drop is a dribble or not is entirely up to the official's judgment.

That said, I will never call this before A1 retouches it. Players are smart, and this is one rule they tend to know. If it's really a dribble, he'll show you by continuing the dribble. If it's a pass, he'll show you by purposefully avoiding the ball; likely boxing out his opponent at the same time to give a teammate time to get to the pass.

Let me change the play slightly.

A1 goes airborne for a shot, realizing it's about to get eaten by a young Dikembe, he throws the ball towards and empty corner of the court. He then proceeds to follow it, where for a few seconds, he's the only player in reach of the ball. You calling the violation if he doesn't touch it?

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.

Do they? What is the rule? Isn't that what we are debating now?

In my opinion, the "passer" purposely avoiding the ball etc. is not what makes it a pass.

In this case, no. Throwing the ball toward an empty corner of the court bears no resemblance to the player simply dropping the ball to the floor.

This is why I originally said I'd have to see the play, but I don't know why the multiple bounce would automatically mean no control. What if the dribbler raises both hands to make the timeout signal? About the time you see it, the ball is making a second bounce, still right beside the dribbler. You won't grant the timeout here unless the dribbler touches the ball again?

For the purpose of the discussion at hand, an interrupted dribble is still a dribble.

In this situation, I agree. I'm not saying it's automatic, either, just a rule of thumb I use to determine, for example, whether a dribbler is in control when he steps out of bounds.

Which is why i said "but it has nothing to do with your decision on the pass/dribble situation."

The rule is the player can't start a dribble after jumping; players know this or they'd attempt it more. I can't remember any players actually attempting to start a dribble after jumping; not that it hasn't happened, just that to say it's rare is to overstate its frequency.


Why not? We have to base it on something, and this meets the common sense test.

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?

Rules citation? Is the ball "loose"? Has it gotten "away" from the dribbler?

I don't have one, so there. I'd say it's loose in this case, even though it's not away from the dribbler.

Years ago(mid-late 80's iirc), the FED issued a ruling on what an interrupted dribble was. They did so because for a year or so they had a rule that said that it was a violation if you tried to continue dribbling after re-gaining control of an interrupted dribble. Stoopid rule; they got rid of it real quick. Anyway, the FED said that a dribble was "interrupted" if a player couldn't immediately dribble if they wanted to. Iow, it met the criteria of current rule 4-15-5--ball is loose or momentarily gets away from the dribbler. Note the word 'away'.

Unfortunately, like a lot of other interpretations issued, that one got lost in the sands of time. The rule book however still uses "loose" and "away from the dribbler". A ball simply bouncing at the side of a player is neither loose nor away.

That said, it's also my opinion that dropping the ball while airborne and not touching it again is not a violation. There's a case book play(4-44-3SitB) that says it's a violation if an airborne player drops the ball to the floor AND then dribbles. That case book play doesn't say that it's a violation if that airborne player only drops the ball to the floor and doesn't touch it again. I think that if the FED had meant for that scenario to be a violation also, they would have written it as such.

From FIBA official rules 2008:
The OP's case is not a violation until the offensive player touches again the ball (FIBA rules). The start of the dribble is when the ball leaves the player's hands, but a travel or an illegal dribble cannot be called until the player touches again the ball.

Ciao

That pretty well sums it up for the OP, then, since it was a FIBA game. I'd like to see the Fed clean up the rule to make it clear like this.

I'll make this a little more realistic b/c my last scenario was strictly an unrealistic hypothetical.

A1 all by his lonesome in the backcourt. He lifts his pivot foot to step into a pass for A2 who is 20 ft ahead of him. A1 realizes A2 is not looking so instead voluntarily drops the ball.

Based on your previous posts you are immediately calling a travel, correct?

I had e-mailed our national interpreter in Canada and his answer corresponds to the vast majority of responses here: no travel until it is touched again by the player.

I kicked it in the game but I will remember it next time.

The actual violation occurs when the ball is released/dropped (releasing the ball on a dribble after lifting the pivot). That is all the rules support. However, whether it is a dribble or not can't be determined until the next person touches the ball....same person, dribble; different person, pass.

That would qualify as an understatement.:eek:

The NFHS deems that the player "began a dribble by throwing the ball to the floor." The FED refers to the point when the player who threw the ball grabs it again as the end of the dribble, and clearly notes in the ruling that the player could also have "continued the dribble" "upon reaching the ball." So touching it again would be continuing the dribble, not starting it.
Here's the play ruling:

2003-04 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 6: A1 jumps from the floor and secures a defensive re-bound. A1 then pivots toward the sideline where a teammate, A2, is standing for an outlet pass. Just as A1 releases the pass, A2 turns and runs down the court. A1 throws a soft bounce pass to where A2 was standing. A1 then moves and secures the ball without dribbling. RULING: Legal action. A1 had the pivot foot on the floor and began a dribble by throwing the ball to the floor (the bounce pass); the dribble ended when A1 secured the ball. Upon reaching the ball, A1 also could have continued the dribble. (4-15-3,4)

So, Nevada, how would you call this play? Throwing the ball to the floor is obviously not a dribble all the time, so how do you make the determination? By what it looks like? Waiting to see who touches the ball next?

By using my hard-earned and well-seasoned judgment. :D

Tick-tock.

This is my position as well. The violation occurs before we're able to judge that it's a violation. Wait and see the whole play.

If the drop is all part of the original motion, or close enough that one can imagine such, treat it as an errant pass, and see what happens next. If the motion clearly stops, and there is a discernible pause, followed by a deliberate drop straight to the floor, it sounds like the start of a dribble to me, which means that it would be a travel.

Well, if we ever work together let's hope this play only happens once, because it's going to be called differently depending on whose primary it is in. :cool:

While you're hoping, why not hope it never happens at all, which seems a pretty safe bet. I don't think I've ever seen it happen.

Yeah, but the jumping for a shot and dropping the ball does happen from time to time. ;)

"Discernible pause"? Really? Dude, now you're making sh!te up. (And: this isn't baseball.)

I think it's time for a poll :D

Yeah, kinda like calling a balk.:D Let me put it another way. A1 lifts the pivot and starts to step into the pass, but A2 has cut the other way and the pass is no longer available. Often you see A1 try to stop, but the ball comes out anyway. The decision to be made here is whether it was a pass or a fumble. But, if the motion obviously stops, A1 hesitates, then obviously, deliberately drops the ball straight to the floor, no way does this seem to me to be that he "threw, batted, or rolled the ball to another player."

And no way I call a travel without him touching the ball again.

Yep, nothing specifies that the thrower needs to know his recipient, nor throw it directly to a player. I just don't understand the reluctance to let this play out.

In reality, this is much ado about very little. In most travel/illegal dribble cases like this, the violator does touch the ball again immediately. The reason for the reluctance is that nothing in the rules states that a second touch is necessary to define a dribble.

A1 tries to save the ball under his own basket and tumbles into the bleachers. B gains control and goes the other way. As A1 returns to the court, A2 makes a steal and passes ahead to A1 at the free throw line. A1 turns to take it to the basket. He bounces the ball twice, but he uses both hands for both bounces. About this time he slips on a wet spot and crashes to the floor. He doesn't touch the ball after the second bounce. All other players are still on the other side of the division line. Is this a violation?

You're correct, it's not required in the rules (I reluctantly admit to liking the FIBA definition better here), but nothing requires it to be called, either. It's judgment, and frankly, as long as I can, within the rules, justify playing on, I'm going that route anyway. IOW, if I'm not absolutely positive it's a violation (dribble in this case), I'm not going to call it and the only way I can be absolutely positive it's a dribble is when A1 is the first to touch the ball in this scenario.

It depends, of course, on whether you judge that 2nd bounce to be a dribble. Personally, if he doesn't touch it, I'd be inclined to let it play out until the rules tell me I can't. :)

End of the play right there...my whistle is blowing.

Even though he doesn't touch the ball after the 2nd bounce?
Here's how I read his play:'
1. Bounce with two hands.
2. Catch with two hands.
3. Bounce.
4. Slip.
5. Ball flies away.

In this play he has already started his dribble and that 2nd bounce is part of the dribble. If however he attempted to catch the ball and fumbled it then no, I wouldn't have a violation.

Fair enough.

Actually, it isn't. His dribble ended when he touched the ball with two hands. The second bounce is the start of another dribble, which is of course illegal, whether he touches it again after this second bounce or not.

No catch. He simply pushed the ball to the floor twice, using both hands both times.

Either way, #2 ends his first dribble. Whether he catches it or simply redirects it is irrelevant. I'm still letting it play out if he doesn't touch it after the 2nd bounce. You're not. The odds of it happening once are thin, and even more so that it'll happen twice in a game. They're further reduced when you add the condition that more than one official will get the call in the same game.

+1....but I'd like to be there when somebody does. And if there's a God, it'll be in a State Final with a ton of experienced witnesses there. That way we can read about it here the next day.:D

No.

Unlike you, I can't read minds. I couldn't be sure that slip might have had something to do with losing control of the ball after the second bounce. I also couldn't be sure that A1 wasn't trying to leave a high bounce for a trailer.

I learned a long time ago to try to call what I can explain. And I don't like 'splainin' that I thought something might have happened. I like to try to call only things that I'm sure of. And because I can't read minds, I'm not 100% sure what A1 was trying to do with the 2-handed second bounce. But hey, that's just me.

How does this relate? What does it mean, even?


If you don't call this a violation based on the idea that it might have been a bounce pass to a guy trailing the play, trailing 40 feet behind the play, I'd like to be there to hear that explanation.

Want to hear it now?

"No violation because there was a legal first dribble and NO second dribble."

That's what I'd say to anybody who wanted me to call a violation. And I'd like to see anybody in the world(except you) question that. And if they did, I'd direct them to the rulebook definition of both a "fumble" and a "pass".

Simple, "coach, I don't know if it's a dribble until he hits it again."

Frankly, he could have known he was about to slip so he bounced it to leave it for his trailing teammate. Again, if there's any doubt at all, I'm letting play continue. That would be a game interrupter, IMO.

And perhaps he would direct your attention to 4.15.4:

A1.........allows the ball to come to rest in one hand. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble.

RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball, the dribble ended and when he pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.

If there's any doubt at all, so am I, but frequently, there is no doubt.

My point is that I have enough doubt to hold my whistle until it's touched. Your doubt is weaker than mine. :)

You seem determined to miss the point.

If A1 dribbles, the dribble starts when he releases the ball. This point is not in question.

If A1 violates by starting a dribble, then the violation occurs when he starts the dribble. This point is not in question.

But you can't know that he's dribbling until he COMPLETES a dribble, i.e., by touching the ball again after it has touched the floor.

You might want to INFER that he's dribbling when he releases the ball. "What else could he be doing?" But we're paid to observe and enforce, not to infer. It's not a violation until it's a violation -- NOT once you have no doubt that it's going to be a violation.

As I said many posts ago, the violation occurs before we're able to judge that it's a violation.

I'm not sure what's at stake for you in this discussion beyond your pride.

Yep, that's when the violation occurred, but you don't know it until he touches it; otherwise based on this wording alone you'd have to call a violation when he palms it prior to pushing the ball to the floor for a pass.

I just don't understand the big rush to call a violation (A1 drops ball instead of releasing shot) when you have rules backing not to.

If he touches it again, violation, if he doesn't, some other player comes along and play continues.

Why the need to jump right in with a whistle on a play that you have rules backing to let proceed?

Okay, last chapter. If, in my judgment, a player pushes a dribble to the floor which is illegal, the whistle blows when the ball hits the floor. The majority of the time this is simply not that hard to judge. Team A has cleared a side of the court for A1 to work one on one. He palms the ball as he makes a spin move, then pushes it to the floor again. He obviously was going to the basket. This obviously was not a pass. If a player has used his dribble, then forgets and starts to dribble again, then remember when the ball hits the floor, is he allowed to run away from the ball and hope for a teammate to come pick it up. I say no. Finally, in the case of the jumpshooter who is about to have his shot blocked, so he drops the ball before returning to the floor, all he is thinking is "I can't come down with the ball in my hands." This is not a pass, so, by default, it is the start of a dribble, which means it is a travel.

I'm done.

And the exact same argument ensues.....

What violation has occurred if A1 palms/carries the ball? If A1 committed a pivot-foot violation while carrying the ball, he has committed a traveling violation by rule. If A1 did not travel during the palm/carry, and then dribbles again after the ball had come to rest on the palm/carry, then A1 has committed an illegal second dribble, also by rule. But what violation can you call if A1 doesn't travel during the carry and then also doesn't touch the ball again after dropping it at the end of the palm/carry? I can't justify calling that a dribble because...well...A1 never actually dribbled..... but that's just me.

Agree to disagree. Neither one of us is going to change the other one's mind.

OK, I was wrong.





I'm not done. :D

I thought of another question. For those who say another touch is required, does it have to be with the hands? If the player about to get his shot blocked drops the ball, and it bounces up and hits his leg, does this make it a violation?

I dunno: does that make it a dribble?

Weird, really weird....I thought about the same scenario this afternoon. Guess our brains aren't that far off from each other. :eek:

From the definition of a dribble in 4-15-1:
"intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)"

I already got this definition. To me it was already a dribble when it was pushed/dropped to the floor. I was asking all these others who say he must touch it again if the touch had to be with the hands. If they say no, I will find this point of view even more difficult to grasp.

The rest of the definition by the way: pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

He already pushed it to the floor once. Case closed.

I've given up having the last word for lent.

He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said. (Matthew 28:6)
 

We'll look forward to hearing from you on Sunday.

Pushing the ball to the floor is necessary but not sufficient for the act to be a dribble. It's also necessary that he touch it again. Together these conditions are jointly sufficient.