a plumber?

C'mon, play along.

There is no such thing as an "intended throw to oneself" in the rules. That's where you're trying to define an action with a term not found in the rules. The action as described in the OP is covered under the rules involving dribbling - see 4.15.4 Sit C (a) and (b), and 4.15.4 Sit D (a) for other similar actions.

4.15.4 Sit E, as shown in the 2006-07 Case book: "(a) A1 tosses the ball from one hand to the other while keeping his/her pivot foot in contact with the floor; or (b) A1 throws the ball over the head of B1, then takes several steps before catching it. RULING: Legal in (a) but an illegal dribble violation in (b). In (b), since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is an illegal dribble. (9-5)."

This case is now shown as 4.44.3 Sit D (a) and (b). The difference is, in (b), even though it no longer calls it an illegal dribble, it doesn't say it's a travel either. (Granted, it's in the traveling section.)

The current case book Sit E was Sit F in the 2006-07 case book.

BINGO! You've finally got it! :)

Illegal dribble, of course. Why would we call anything else?

Oh? We certainly found it in the case book play you mentioned, and according to the 2008-09 book, it's specifically calls this travelling.

Finally, eh? Me, eh? Condescending comments aren't cool, particularly when they're inaccurate. Since the case book has shown that there was no dribble in the play, and it is indeed travelling, I believe I've made my point.

Sorry, did not mean to be condescending; maybe I was still grumpy from having to work on a day where my kids tell me they're having fun at the pool. Didn't mean to take it out on you. :D

If you've been around here long enough, you know there are a couple of instances where interps are made or changed without any basis in the basic rules. This is, in my opinion, one of them. I pointed out the exact case play had been called an illegal dribble back in the '06-'07 case book, and the action fits the definition of an illegal dribble - touching the ball twice before it hits the ground. However, either last year, or the year before, it was moved to the traveling section of the rules. My feeling it was moved because of the first part of that case (a) - the one where A1 throws the ball back and forth between hands while keeping the pivot foot down - this fits the scenario of deciding travel or not, because it involves a pivot foot.

The second part, (b), does not fit anywhere in the definition of a travel. Traveling is, per 4-44: "...moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of the prescribed limits while holding the ball". This is why the case play is not a travel. It even says, "since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal." It does not mention anything about a pivot foot, or moving feet in excess of prescribed limits, which is the very definition of traveling.

We agree it's violation. We just disagree which violation. It's too bad you and the NFHS are wrong in this case. ;) :D

Because it didn't touch the floor. It seemed to be your contention above that the violation was not an illegal dribble because it wasn't a dribble because it was not pushed/thrown to the floor.

Also, in other threads, some say it is not a violation in this case until it returns from the floor and is touched again by the dribbler. Otherwise, it might have been a pass. I do not agree with this.

It was indeed batted to the floor. The fact it didn't reach there has no bearing. In the OP's question, the ball wasn't thrown to the floor. Intent plays a role here.

No prob, M. You say it's an illegal dribble, because it can't be a travel. I say it's a travel, because it can't be an illegal dribble. Tomato, tomahto. Violation called, game moves on.

That's the beauty of being a newer official. We accept change better. :D

agreed

Remember, I'm still grumpy (but not as grumpy as some here can be...) - but now who's being condescending? You're a newer official, so you're better than me because you can accept change better?

Fine, you've got you're opinion that it can't be an illegal dribble. Since you're a newer official, you're probably closer to having been in school than I am, so you should probably understand this phrase: show your work. I've given you rules backing (shown my work) for my opinion as to why it is an illegal dribble. It is even backed by the specific case play from '06-'07, and before. The only backing to your opinion that it's a travel is the exact same case play. Fine, then tell why it's now a travel, when it was an illegal dribble before? How do you know for sure the NFHS didn't make a mistake in changing the case from illegal dribble to travel? In the OP, was a pivot foot established? Was A1 holding the ball the entire time? Was pivot foot lifted before starting a dribble? Why do any of these questions matter? Because they have to do directly with determining a traveling violation, and they have nothing to do with the OP, or the case play, for that matter.

It can be fun discussing rules and how they apply to various situations. It makes one think, and at the least, makes one read through the rules and the various case plays to determine the intent of the rule. But simply dismissing a differing opinion from you by saying you accept change better because you're younger, or older officials are set in their ways and less likely to change, then you've shown a lack of effort in learning the rules. And that will hurt you in the long run. But, look at the bright side, you may never get to become one of them "older officials". ;) :D

All nice and fine until you read 4.44.5B (from an older book...current number may be different).

"It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is the first to touch the ball"

A1 was not holding the ball the entire time. A1 didn't start a dribble after lifting the pivot foot. A1 didn't establish a pivot foot.

I can easily make arguments for both the illegal dribble ruling and the travel ruling. Below is a case for the travel ruling...

The tossing of the ball into the air (or releasing it by setting it on the floor) are, alone, nothing. However, the floor situation is ruled a travel when the player resecures the ball. Why? It is essentially an attempt to circumvent the travel rule in a way that is not consistent with the spirit of the intended rule. It is effective the foot movement that makes it a violation. As for the throwing of the ball, running to a new spot, then catching it all without the ball hitting the floor....same argument. It is an attempt to circumvent the travel rule....thus a travel....but only if the feet moved.

Probably not, sir. I'm actually a middle-aged dude, who started this avocation later than most (unless you count that stint as a college intramural ref a couple of decades ago). If you think you're addressing a hot-shot kid who wants to show the old school something new, then you have me all wrong.

Yes, one must back up his/her opinions with facts. I'm completely behind that paradigm, and I believe the aforementioned interpretation change in the case book backed my opinion. However sir, since you threw the jab that I and the entire NFHS are wrong with our opinions, I thought you could take my joke about change. Perhaps I was off-base about that.

No-one said anyone was better than anyone; that's an incorrect inference. You're absolutely right that a "lack of effort in learning the rules" is harmful. (Believe me, I don't lack effort there.) But, I've also seen a resistance to change have a similarly harmful effect.

Proposed addition to 4-44

If a player tosses the ball in the air and catches it again, without the ball touching the floor or another player, pivot foot restrictions apply the same as to the player holding the ball.

But, Camron, you and I both know this is a specific exception written for a specific instance - to get around the wording in 4-44-5(b). Nothing more, nothing less. It is even noted as the corresponding rule (which you didn't include in your quotes...). The only reason that exception was put in was because otherwise the move of putting the ball down, standing up, then picking up the ball would be perfectly legal under the rest of the travel rule.

Besides, what does this have to do with the OP, where the ball never touches the ground, and the player never has control of the ball while on the ground? :confused: What you seem to be telling me, in comparing the OP with this case play, is that somehow the OP is actually a legal play as well, but A1 must be getting away with circumventing a rule (in other words, doing something otherwise legal), so we gotta call *something*.

As mentioned above, it is an otherwise perfectly legal move under the travel rule as written, without this specific exception. Why was this exception put in? Because the committee said, essentially, "we feel it's more important that a player cannot stand up with the ball, so even though you found a way to do it legally, we still won't allow it."

As far as whether it's a travel, "foot movement" is certainly an aspect, but you've still left out one very important phrase in the rule: "while holding the ball". Every aspect of the pivot foot and specific restrictions all happen while holding the ball. (Yes, of course, with the exception noted above, but again, that's an otherwise legal move that is specifically not allowed when trying to stand up with the ball.) In the OP, all of the "foot movement" happens without the player holding the ball. That's why I do not believe it's a travel.

Why do I feel it's an illegal dribble? 4-15-2: "During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)." In the OP, the ball didn't hit the floor, so it's a violation. If the ball had hit the floor before A1 recovered it, it would've been legal. The case play 4.44.3 Sit D (b), was called an illegal dribble, with reference to 4-15-2 before it was moved to the traveling section. My opinion is the whole Situation was moved there because of (a), where it actually mentions a pivot foot, and thus belongs in the traveling section. But the explanation of why (b) is a violation has nothing to do with traveling; rather it essentially gives 4-15-2 as the reason. "In (b), since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal. (9-4)" It gives absolutely no indication of pivot foot, etc., which is the main basis for determining traveling.

bainsey - remember I told you was grumpy for having to be inside at the office while my kids were at the pool, so hopefully that might explain some of my curtness in my previous response. Please don't take it too personally. Today I've had my dip in the pool, and an adult beverage, so I feel a lot better now. :D

Part of the fun of this forum is discussing particular plays, and how the rules apply. If you've been here long enough you've seen excellent minds disagree on how a rule or play should be interpreted, so obviously things aren't cut-and-dried on everything. We've also seen a few rulings and case plays come out where most of us scratch our heads and wonder what the heck the rules committee was thinking. Sometimes the committee even seems to make changes based on some of the discussions that happen here. (Big Brother NFHS could be watching us now... :eek: :D )

Yes, I'm aware the case play currently says it's a traveling violation. I can also point to the previous case book that says the exact same play is considered an illegal dribble. So, what changed? That's the point of my response and this discussion - using the fundamentals of the dribble and travel rules, nothing has changed, and I believe it should still be an illegal dribble. My opinion (and it is only an opinion; I have no insider info that backs it up) is that the committee moved the case play because of the first part of it (a) does belong in the travel section, and (b) went along for the ride, so to speak, and they should've split them up. (See my response to Camron above for more details.) That's why I think the committee's ruling is incorrect in this case. Maybe they have another basis for changing it; if so, I wish they would expand on the reasoning in the case book so it's easier to understand. Does that mean I'm better or smarter than anyone there? Hell, no. But I can certainly have an opinion, and I feel pretty confident based on the underlying rule basics involved.

This is why rules study helps - we may see a case play, and see the ruling, but it helps to know the fundamentals of why the ruling came about to help us understand the game better and how it should be called. It's not simply about resisting change, it's understanding the reasons for changes.

It establishes a philosoply that there unusal and unintended actions that should still be considered as traveling even when the actions don't directly violate the exact traveling rules.

No, what is does is esablish the idea that A1 is to be considerd to be holding the ball the entire time when they voluntarily release the ball in a way that is neither a dribble, pass, nor try and are the next player to touch the ball. Under that concept, the involved movement becomes a travel in both the OP and the case of the player on the floor because there were considered to be holding the ball and move their effective "pivot foot".

All fine except for the case play that says the very same action of tossing the ball into the air and catching it is legal when the player is standing still. If it really was a dribble (illegal dribble), this case would also be illegal...but it is not.

The only difference between the legal case play and the one ruled traveling is foot movement.

Unless you think of it as I described above where the player is treated as if they were holding the ball.
In the OP, the ball wasn't batted into the air at all either. It was thrown. So, the rule doesn't really cover the case of throwing either. In fact, the rule 4-15-2 is not what you really think it is. Go dig up an NFHS Basketball Handbook. Find the part about when the dribbling rules were established. Read about early forms of dribbling and then you'll understand what this rule is really about. It has nothing to do with how a dribble is started and everything to do with a form of dribbling that hasn't been used in 75+ years.