rebound, pass

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Where does it mention this "philosophy" extends outside this one specific case? Can I say the "philosophy" of calling a double foul in the event of a blarge also extends to the event of when one official calls a foul, and the other official calls a violation, both are penalized? Or does the "philosophy" only apply to one specific case? The philosophy extends only to the fact the committee doesn't want a player to have control of the ball while on the ground, and be able to stand up with it.

I think you're reaching a little on this one, without any specific written backing from an interp, etc.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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".

Ok, now you're really reaching. Do you have any rule or case backing that even comes close to saying such things? What is a "voluntary release of the ball that is not a dribble, pass or try"? How can a player be holding the ball when they're actually not? What is the definition of an "effective" pivot foot"? Besides, if A1 was still considered to be "effectively" holding the ball during this "throw", wouldn't the violation actually occur when the pivot foot is established and lifted? Why is it not called until the ball is touched the second time, even after several steps? Why is it not a violation if the ball hits the floor before A1 recovers it?

You have way too many leaps of faith and undefined terms here to come up with an actual reasoning behind the case being a travel instead of a dribble.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I can actually see your point here, but I still contend it cannot be a travel due to the basics - moving the feet in excess of the prescribed limits while holding the ball. In spite of your assertion, a player can't be holding the ball, if they're not holding the ball. You have absolutely no other rule basics that come close to that philosophy.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

The rule also says "...or pushes the ball to the floor", and a throw is obviously closer to a push than a bat.

I know you're trying hard to defend the NFHS and the case play change. But you're not doing a good job quite yet. Kepp trying though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The philosophy extends only to the fact the committee doesn't want a player to have control of the ball while on the ground, and be able to stand up with it.

I think you're reaching a little on this one, without any specific written backing from an interp, etc.
...

Ok, now you're really reaching. Do you have any rule or case backing that even comes close to saying such things?

Yes. 2 or 3 in fact....the one about a a player placing the ball on the ground not being considered a dribble. The one about a player getting up while setting the ball on the floor. The on that says it is not a pass if it doesn't go to another player. The ones covering fumbles and interrupted dribbles.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What is a "voluntary release of the ball that is not a dribble, pass or try"?

You tell me what it is when a player sets the ball on the floor and is the first to pick it up. The best you've got is that is a dribble or illegal dribble but but we have case play that says it is legal for a player to do so and that it is not considered a dribble.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

How can a player be holding the ball when they're actually not? What is the definition of an "effective" pivot foot"?

They're ideas...ways to think about the play. Not definitions.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Besides, if A1 was still considered to be "effectively" holding the ball during this "throw", wouldn't the violation actually occur when the pivot foot is established and lifted?

Why would that be...Even absent the throw???

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Why is it not called until the ball is touched the second time, even after several steps? Why is it not a violation if the ball hits the floor before A1 recovers it?

Easy....Because it could be a dribble or a pass if it does touch the floor or go to another player.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You have way too many leaps of faith and undefined terms here to come up with an actual reasoning behind the case being a travel instead of a dribble.

No leap at all...you're just not connecting all of the dots that we have.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I can actually see your point here, but I still contend it cannot be a travel due to the basics - moving the feet in excess of the prescribed limits while holding the ball. In spite of your assertion, a player can't be holding the ball, if they're not holding the ball. You have absolutely no other rule basics that come close to that philosophy.

There are several...

1. A player who was in the lane for under 3 seconds lifts his foot from the lane such that they are only touching outside the lane. They are still considred to be in the lane until they touch outside of it with BOTH feet. And this is contrary to the primary location rule that says you are where you are touching.

2. There was once an interpretation (can't remember where and don't have the time to find it) that deemed it 3 seconds for a player to step OOB below the lane in order to avoid the 3 second call.

3. An airborne player who has released a shot is till treated as if they have player control...even though they don't.

4. Finally, the case where the player sets the ball on the floor and gets up....the ONLY way to get traveling out of that is if the player is considred to be holding the ball.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The rule also says "...or pushes the ball to the floor", and a throw is obviously closer to a push than a bat.

Not in the part that talks about it being OK to bat it into the air as long as it is allowed to hit the floor...which is defined as only OK "during a dribble"...not in the start of a dribble.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I know you're trying hard to defend the NFHS and the case play change. But you're not doing a good job quite yet. Kepp trying though.

[just another ref]

In discussing this particular case play, about all we are doing is speculating about what was/could have been in the heads of those who wrote it. We have little choice in the matter but to call the violation, which was formerly one thing and now is another.

At least there is no direct contradiction, (is there?) like in the hideous backcourt interpretation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There was once an interpretation (can't remember where and don't have the time to find it) that deemed it 3 seconds for a player to step OOB below the lane in order to avoid the 3 second call.

That's correct. And we had to walk to our game assignments, through the snow, uphill, both ways.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

That works for me, sir. Consider hands shaken.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I know you're trying hard to defend the NFHS and the case play change.

Actually, I stated earlier that I could easily make arugments for either point of view...I'm just providing the argument for this side at the moment.

There are some actions that can be two different violations at the same time. Perhaps this is one of them.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You tell me what it is when a player sets the ball on the floor and is the first to pick it up. The best you've got is that is a dribble or illegal dribble but but we have case play that says it is legal for a player to do so and that it is not considered a dribble.

I mentioned it a couple of times before - I don't think they are trying to introduce or change a basic rule philosophy, but rather just saying "This move would otherwise be legal, but we still don't want you to do it because we feel not being able to stand up with the ball is more important."

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They're ideas...ways to think about the play. Not definitions.

I understand what you're trying to do, but we have to be careful to stay within the framework of of the definitions and rules that currently exist. Introducing ideas and definitions that have not been previously used can possibly bring up unintended consequences, like my questions regarding your "effective pivot foot", moving the pivot foot while the throw is in the air, etc. I can probably come up with more unintended meanings, none of which has ever been mentioned in any rule, case play, interp, rule fundamentals, introduction to rule changes, etc. Without any mention of any other wording to the contrary, we are only left with what is actually written.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No leap at all...you're just not connecting all of the dots that we have.

Sometimes adding dots that were not there to begin with can create a picture far different than the one intended. If we stick to the dots that we know currently exist, we may be able to come up with a more accurate picture.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

1. A player who was in the lane for under 3 seconds lifts his foot from the lane such that they are only touching outside the lane. They are still considred to be in the lane until they touch outside of it with BOTH feet. And this is contrary to the primary location rule that says you are where you are touching.

Exactly; thanks for thinking of this this one, as this backs up my argument that they took a move that was otherwise perfectly legal, and outlawed it because they felt the underlying rule was more important. Since this directly violates the rule on player location (one foot on the ground, one foot in the air), would you be willing to "connect the dots" to a player who has one foot inbounds, one foot OOB, lifts the foot OOB and catches a pass with only the foot inbounds on the ground? It is a very easy philosophy transfer, but one we both know doesn't work. Why? Because the exception only applies to the exact situation of trying to circumvent the 3-second rule, and not because they are trying to change any philosophies about player location.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

2. There was once an interpretation (can't remember where and don't have the time to find it) that deemed it 3 seconds for a player to step OOB below the lane in order to avoid the 3 second call.

I believe this now falls under the current interp of an unauthorized leaving the court violation. Before that, I could easily make the assumption they were trying to do the same thing as the player who lifted their foot out of the lane.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

3. An airborne player who has released a shot is till treated as if they have player control...even though they don't.

Hmm...I think I follow your reasoning; but again, the airborne shooter rule is a very specific written exception, and without any written case plays, interps, etc. explaining how the philosophy extends to other situations involving airborne players, we're left with the airborne shooter philosophy applying to, oh, perhaps, only airborne shooters?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

4. Finally, the case where the player sets the ball on the floor and gets up....the ONLY way to get traveling out of that is if the player is considred to be holding the ball.

Again, no - they aren't saying it's a violation because the player was "effectively holding the ball" or "effectively moving their pivot foot", or any other philosophy, but rather they were circumventing a rule, which you and I both agree is the language we've seen involving this rule. This means the players found a legal way (loophole, so to speak) to get around how the travel rule was written to be able to get up off the floor with the ball. The committee said, "Yes, that move is legal, but we still don't want you to do that anyway". They took the exact same philosophy involving the lane violation situation you mentioned earlier - the players found a loophole to be able to effectively stay in the same spot on the court without actually being in the lane, so they said, "Yes, that move is legal, but we still don't want you to do that anyway".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not in the part that talks about it being OK to bat it into the air as long as it is allowed to hit the floor...which is defined as only OK "during a dribble"...not in the start of a dribble.

You still haven't shown me definitely in the rules where the OP cannot be a dribble, only that you have inserted your ideas about a "throw", etc. without any rule or interp backing on that term.

I'm still looking for the interp that mentions the play we've talked about before, where A1 attempts to pass the ball to A2, but A2 doesn't see it and runs away. A1 then runs after it and is the first to retrieve it. The ruling was it is considered a dribble, and if A1 had used their dribble prior to the attempted pass, it would be a dribble violation, but if A1 had not used their dribble, the throw and catch would be considered a dribble. Perhaps it's an NCAA ruling? This would pretty much settle the whole discussion, wouldn't it?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You still haven't shown me definitely in the rules where the OP cannot be a dribble, only that you have inserted your ideas about a "throw", etc. without any rule or interp backing on that term.

I can't...and have said earlier that I could easily make arguments for both the illegal dribble and the traveling. My angle was to point out the reasons why a travel could be a valid call.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm still looking for the interp that mentions the play we've talked about before, where A1 attempts to pass the ball to A2, but A2 doesn't see it and runs away. A1 then runs after it and is the first to retrieve it. The ruling was it is considered a dribble, and if A1 had used their dribble prior to the attempted pass, it would be a dribble violation, but if A1 had not used their dribble, the throw and catch would be considered a dribble. Perhaps it's an NCAA ruling? This would pretty much settle the whole discussion, wouldn't it?

Not really. That case includes the ball bouncing on the floor. So, it wouldn't settle anything about whether a ball tossed into the air and caught before landing is a dribble (illegal dribble).

In fact, the another case play that is just as close covers a player tossing the ball into the air and catching it without moving their feet. The ruling in that case is that such action is not a dribble or a travel.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

carry on bag?

Photo ID?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I can't...and have said earlier that I coule easily make argument for both the illegal dribble and the traveling. My angles was to point out the reasons why a travel could be a valid call.



Not really. That case includes the ball bouncing on the floor. So, it wouldn't settle anything about whether a ball tossed into the air and caught before landing is a dribble (illegal dribble).

In fact, the another case play that is just as close covers a player tossing the ball into the air and catching it without moving their feet. The ruling in that case is that such action is not a dribble or a travel.

Well, since that case play does call it a dribble, it would obviously follow that touching the ball twice before it hits the floor is a violation, per the dribble rule.

I do agree tossing and catching the ball without moving the feet makes it sound like it belongs in the travel section. But maybe it's simply an action that the committee feels is not something that provides an unfair advantage to a player, so they just wanted to clarify that it's a legal play. My feeling is still that the two sections of this case play need to be separated, without any further clarification as to why they should be considered under the same rule. Remember, both parts were considered an illegal dribble before the change, even though I would've argued the part about tossing the ball in the air without moving the feet didn't belong in the dribble section.

Anybody have Mary Struckhoff's number?

[M&M Guy]

Ok, found it. NCAA 2010 Case Book:

A.R. 88 - A1, after: (1) receiving a pass; or (2) ending his/her dribble, passes the ball to A2. Before receiving the pass, A2 leaves the area on a cut to the basket. A1 goes to the area vacated by A2 and recovers the ball.

RULING: In order for a pass to occur, the thrown ball must be touched by another player. This did not occur in (1) or (2).

(1) A1's attempted pass was the start of his/her dribble. When he/she recovered the ball and started another dribble he/she would've committed a violation. (Had A1, after releasing the pass, which was the start of a dribble, not recovered the ball but rather continued to dribble, it would not have been a violation.)

(2) A1 had previously ended a dribble before his/her attempted pass to A2. A1's release of the ball on his/her attempted pass to A2 was the start of a second dribble. When A1 recovered the ballhe/she ended the dribble. A1 committed the violation after he/she touched the ball. (Rule 4-21.2 and 9-7.1.c)

Rule 4-21 by the way, is the dribble rule. 4-21.2 says, "The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing, tapping, or batting the ball to the playing court."

So, given the fact there is no real difference between the 2 codes on the dribble and travel rules (other than perhaps the word "throw" in 4-21), I feel it's safe to assume this A.R. gives us the intent of the dribble rule is to include a throw that is recovered by the same player, and thus subject to the other restrictions in the dribble rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, found it. NCAA 2010 Case Book:

A.R. 88 - A1, after: (1) receiving a pass; or (2) ending his/her dribble, passes the ball to A2. Before receiving the pass, A2 leaves the area on a cut to the basket. A1 goes to the area vacated by A2 and recovers the ball.

RULING: In order for a pass to occur, the thrown ball must be touched by another player. This did not occur in (1) or (2).

(1) A1's attempted pass was the start of his/her dribble. When he/she recovered the ball and started another dribble he/she would've committed a violation. (Had A1, after releasing the pass, which was the start of a dribble, not recovered the ball but rather continued to dribble, it would not have been a violation.)

(2) A1 had previously ended a dribble before his/her attempted pass to A2. A1's release of the ball on his/her attempted pass to A2 was the start of a second dribble. When A1 recovered the ballhe/she ended the dribble. A1 committed the violation after he/she touched the ball. (Rule 4-21.2 and 9-7.1.c)

All fine, but not relevant. The assumption in that play is that the ball had hit the floor. Nnormal/typical is the assumption in all case plays unless otherwise stated and I don't know that there has ever been a player fast enough to throw a normal/typical pass and run to catch it without the ball hitting the floor.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Rule 4-21 by the way, is the dribble rule. 4-21.2 says, "The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing, tapping, or batting the ball to the playing court."

Some would argue that "to the playing court" doesn't happen unless it reaches the playing court....just like a pass isn't a pass until it reaches another player ...

"A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player."

Plus, the touch it twice restriction is "during a dribble", not in the start of a dribble.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, given the fact there is no real difference between the 2 codes on the dribble and travel rules (other than perhaps the word "throw" in 4-21), I feel it's safe to assume this A.R. gives us the intent of the dribble rule is to include a throw that is recovered by the same player, and thus subject to the other restrictions in the dribble rule.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All fine, but not relevant. The assumption in that play is that the ball had hit the floor. Nnormal/typical is the assumption in all case plays unless otherwise stated and I don't know that there has ever been a player fast enough to throw a normal/typical pass and run to catch it without the ball hitting the floor.

Huh? What about the original play?

If you can find where that's specifically mentioned or assumed, let me know. In the meantime, if a player starts a dribble with their left hand, and the right hand hits the ball in another direction before the ball hits the floor, I'm still calling a violation. Aren't you?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Some would argue that "to the playing court" doesn't happen unless it reaches the playing court....just like a pass isn't a pass until it reaches another player ...

Care to name names?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Huh? What about the original play?

See post #2 for the answer to that. The OP was also under the assumption that the ball hit the floor. The discussion then led to the possibility of the player catcing it before the ball ever hit the floor.

If the ball hits the floor, we clearly have a dribble. There is no issue on that point....it is legal. The only point of discussion is if it is done where the ball doesn't hit the floor.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you can find where that's specifically mentioned or assumed, let me know. In the meantime, if a player starts a dribble with their left hand, and the right hand hits the ball in another direction before the ball hits the floor, I'm still calling a violation. Aren't you?

Nope. Since the player can legally toss the ball from one hand to the other as long as the pivot foot doesn't move what is there to call? It is not a dribble, illegal or legal. It is nothing at all. That right hand might just catch the ball or bat it back to the left hand where they can legally catch it.

I might, however, get them for lifting the pivot foot before releasing the ball to dribble if the foot comes up before the ball is released from that right hand.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Anybody have Mary Struckhoff's number?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.