rebound, pass
 

If you catch a rebound while in the air, say clearly established control and make a pass before landing. Would the same player be able to get the ball without it being a violation?
If control wasn't clear, a tip pass I assume you could go get it.

Yes. Assuming it hit the floor in the process, it would simply be a dribble....no different if they had done so after landing.

Are you contending that the ball must hit the floor for this action to be legal?

I can't envision a player grabbing a rebound with two hands, making a pass and then grabbing that pass in mid-air- all without landing. Sounds almost physically impossible to me.

JR,
Here is the question:
A1 jumps and catches a rebound. While still airborne he throws a high lob pass which will land about 10 feet away from his position. After he lands, he quickly runs over and catches the ball before it strikes the floor.
Is this a legal play or some kind of violation?

Illegal dribble. 4.15.4E(b) (from an older book that I have by computer)....

A1 throws the ball over the head of B1 and then takes several steps before catching it. RULING: an illegal dribble violation....since the ball did not thouch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is an illegal dribble.

The fact that it was thrown over B1's head in the case play is not really relevant as that really has nothing to do with the illegal dribble rule but is only there to set up the scenario.

Camron,
I'm obviously aware of that case book ruling, which has now been altered to a traveling violation.
I question its applicability to this situation for the following reason. A1 was airborne when throwing the ball. That's not true in the case play.

I don't see a violation because A1 never established a pivot foot.

That might be relevant to traveling, but not to illegal dribble or other violations, which was kinda his point.

It is possible to travel without having ever had a pivot foot.

True, however, that is not the case here and as Nevada has pointed out 4.15.4E(b) doesn't fit.

Where in the case play does it actually say that A1 was not airborne? (I know, it is implied, but it doesn't actually say it ;) )

That said, the point and intent of the case is that a player who has caught the ball (has player control) can not just throw the ball up into the air and run and catch it. The only legal ways to move the ball that is under player control are by shooting, passing or dribbling....and this is neither a shot, a pass or a dribble. (The ball may also be moved through involuntary loss of player control...fumble, opponent knocking the ball free, etc.)

It is a movement not intended to be legal. A player who has done so, according to the new version of the case play has traveled only because they are considered to be virtually holding the ball the entire time (that is the only way to get a travel out of that case play).

This is not unlike the player who is in control of the ball while sitting on the floor. If they place the ball on the floor, stand up, then grab the ball, they have traveled...because they are considered to be effectively holding the ball the entire time.

EDIT: Note that if the airborne player were to land, and without further movement of the feet, catch the ball they would not have traveled....as would be allowed had they held onto the ball the entire time and as is consistent with the case play where a player, while standing in one spot, tosses the ball from hand to hand.

Imagine the possibility if this were not a violation....A4 catches a rebound and, before landing, tosses it up into the air away from other players. A4 chases it down, jumps, catches it, and does the same thing again....and again...and again...all the way to the other end of the court where they finally catch it and dunk it. Hmmmm.

An interesting point, but bear in mind you can legally do something similar to that with your feet on the floor.

For example, A1 is in the backcourt and attempts a try for goal. Player/team control has ended. A1 chases down the ball and catches it. Control is back. A1 repeats, and repeats, and repeats. You can't call travelling, because control ends on each "shot."

It sounds to me like we need to define when player control ended in the OP. If it began when the player secured the ball, did it end when he released the ball on the pass? If so, the travelling rule only covers when there is one or two feet on the floor, not zero.

If the ball hits the floor before retrieval, I can see a case for a dribble. If he simply catches his own "pass," I don't see anything illegal yet.

I'll throw this in the mix as well.

The rebounder is jumping up several times and using a controlled tip to him/herself to keep the ball away from a defender until they can gather it with both hands. As a result of the tips the player moves several feet from the initial rebounding location. Some would call this good rebounding skills some may not.

Have they now done a similar act as what was in the OP?

What pass?

You need to learn basic definitions, Bainsey. Read NFHS rule 4-31 and then tell us how that can be a pass.

Not relavent. This is important - team control ends on a shot. In the OP, team control is established with the catch of the rebound, and team control does not end with the pass. Therefore, your example doesn't apply.

And the violation that occurs is an illegal dribble per the case play, not a travel. It is not a "pass", because as per the definition, it did not go to another player. Therefore, it can only be part of a dribble. Then 4-15-2 comes in: "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 hands." If the ball was still in the air when the player retrieved it, it is a violation. If the ball hit the floor, then it is part of a dribble. If they catch it, then dribble again, that would be another violation.

No matter what they call it, it's perfectly legal under NFHS and NCAA rules. There is no player control on a tip. They can 'control tip' the ball from one end of the court to the other legally as long as the ball never comes to rest on the hand of the player tipping it.

No, because player control was never established in your case, but it was in the OP, because they specifically said the rebound was caught.

4-12-5 seems to cover your play: "Team control does not exist during a jump ball, or the touching of a rebound, but is re-established when a player secures control." 4-12-1 tells us player control only exists when a player is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

Bingo!

It doesn't meet the definition of a "fumble" either. That leaves a dribble as the only alternative.

To the OP, M&M? True. That illustration had more to do with Cam's example than anything.

Already covered, chief. If you notice in the following paragraph, "pass" is in quotes. Perhaps I should have done the same there, too, for clarity's sake.

Anyway, the number of feet on the floor is irrelevant when touching the ball twice. That's fine. While that certainly isn't a pass, and the act is indeed a violation, I'm not yet sold it's a dribble, either. If a dribble starts with the act of pushing the ball to the floor (NFHS 4-15-1), how can one call an illegal dribble when the definition of dribbling is not met?

It would be an illegal dribble for that very reason....it didn't fit the required definition of dribbing. The legal method of dribbling is defined...any other method of of moving with "control" of the ball is illegal....an illegal dribble or a travel.

Doesn't NFHS rule 4-15-2 say that you can legally bat the ball into the air during a dribble provided that the ball hits the floor before you touch it again? Doesn't a dribble start as soon as the ball leaves the dribbler's hand(s)?

That's where the definition of a "dribble" is met in the play being discussed.

Absolutely, IF he is dribbling.

Consider the pass definition from earlier. If the action doesn't meet the definition of the pass, it's not a pass. That's the exact point I'm making about dribbling. If the action doesn't meet the definition of dribbling, then to be consistent, it shouldn't be called "dribbling," be it legal or illegal. While Case 4.15.4D(a) shows an illegal action after dribbling had started, the OP features a play where the definition isn't met.

Ultimately, it's a violation, and most people won't care what you call it, as long as you call it something. Perhaps "illegal dribble" is the closest we have within the existing rules, and considering the infinitesimal chance we'll ever have this play, that probably won't change.

Not according to the "new" case book ruling. Please recall that the violation was changed a couple of years ago from illegal dribble to traveling by that rules guru Mary S.

For the record, I agree with Camron and JR that this action should be illegal. However, I can't find anything in the text of the NFHS rules that makes it so.

You may be confusing the definitions of the terms dribble and pass with the generally accepted meanings, and intent of the player. A pass, by rule, is to another player. The fact that you even used quotes to call it a "pass" when the same player retrieved it shows you have the rule confused with intent. If A1 releases the ball, even with the obvious intent that it's towards a teammate, and still ends up going to get the ball because the teammate doesn't see it coming, it is simply not a pass, according to the rules. There is even a recent case play or interp that states that very concept, and even states it is considered a dribble after A1 retrieves it.

The same with a dribble - don't confuse the "generally accepted action" of bouncing the ball straight up and down from the hand about waist high down to the floor, with the definition of a dribble. The ball doesn't have to go in a direct line from the hand to the floor, but can even go up in the air, as long as it's allowed to hit the ground before being touched again (4-15-2). There are several case plays that support the idea that a dribble is not limited to only bouncing the ball straight up and down.

That's what JR and I are saying - in the OP, it wasn't a pass, by rule, because the ball didn't go to another player. It wasn't a fumble, because there wasn't accidental loss of control (as per another definition, 4-21). It wasn't a try. So that makes the player's action a dribble, by rule. And thus, you can make a determination of whether an action is legal or not based on dribble and travelling rules.

Oh, yea...I vaguely remember that... :) I may need to get a more recent copy here at the office. I wonder if my boss would mind if I took some additional bookshelf space for more basketball-related items?...

At least we agree it's a violation, even though we may disagree which one.

I may have confused some of you with my "pass" notation. The quotes basically said "for the the lack of a better word," but I know it's wrong.

Actually, that's my point, and it's all about the definition, not the general acceptance. My understanding of the OP was that ball was never allowed to hit the floor, so it wouldn't meet the definition of a dribble, either. If it hits the floor, that's a different story.

So, if it's not A, nor B, nor C, then it must be D, even though the action doesn't meet the definition of D? Is there a rule the cites this?

I've wondered that myself. :) For now, I keep mine in a desk drawer.

Aside to Nevada: Do you have that recent case in question? That may put this whole argument to bed.

That's the problem. The ball was released. It was not a pass, a fumble, or a try, so it is a dribble. It was touched a second time before it touched the floor, so it is a violation.

Actually, it meets the definition of an illegal dribble. See jar's response above.

Yep - 4-15. :) If it's not 4-15, then what rule would you use to govern the ball movement/play as described?

I believe the case play he mentions - 4.15.4 Sit E (b) - changed the original interp from a dribble violation to a traveling violation. Not many of us can figure why it's traveling, but at least we agree it's still a violation nontheless.

We agree it's a violation (and perhaps that's good enough for 99% of us), but I maintain it can't be an illegal dribble, because the definition of dribble wasn't met in the first place. You can't have an illegal anything unless the definition of the "anything" is satisfied. (For example, there's no illegal contact without contact.)

Yes, touching the ball twice is indeed illegal while dribbling. Looking at that, let's say A-1 stands flat footed, tosses the ball up with his left hand, and while remaining flat-footed, catches the ball with his right. Is this a violation? Is this an illegal dribble? The ball was touched twice before hitting floor, but I say no violation, and certainly not an illegal dribble. The touched-twice rule only works when the dribble has begun.

I don't have a 2009-10 rule/case book handy, but perhaps 4.15.4 Sit E (b) calls it a travel, because the player moved from one spot on the floor to another, touching it in two different spots, and never truly started the dribble. Using the same logic, if it's not a dribble, nor a pass, nor a try, etc., then it can only be a travel.

You have it backwards.

If you don't meet the definition of "anything" you have performed an illegal "anything". If you met the definition of an "anything", that, by definition, means it was legal.

You can have either legal contact or illegal contact, however. Illegal contact is contact that is not don't within the legal range of contact.

An illegal dribble is an action that, in most ways, fits the act of a legal dribble but has some element that does not....making it an illegal dribble. (Or is a drible at a time when it is not permitted---after the player has already dribbled). It just so happens that we give one of them a specific name (carry/palm) even though it doesn't need on since it is really the ending an restarting of a 2nd dribble.


And I think that is why the referenced case play was changed to traveling instead of an illegal dribble.....that the movement of the feet is the defining factor.

Incorrect, sir. By this logic, a pass would be an illegal dribble, because the action doesn't meet the definition of a dribble.

You can't have illegal contact without contact first. You can't have an illegal use of hands without a use of hands. The "anything" must occur first for the action to be deemed illegal.

Illegal actions are also defined. Rule 9-5 spells out an illegal dribble.

Meeting the definition is a prerequisite for determining whether an action was legal or illegal.

Yup.

And if the ball was released, rule 4-15-3 now applies....The dribble may be STARTED by pushing throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted." Anything that happens after the ball leaves the hand(s) on that dribble start now falls into "during the dribble". And the ball was then touched twice during one dribble, which is a violation.

A pass is a pass when it touches another player. You have lost me here.



9-5 could also use some work. According to 9-5, the only violation is to start another dribble after the dribble ends. Yet, what we are discussing,
(touching the ball a second time before it touches the floor) is not one of the things that ends a dribble.

Huh?

4-15-1: "A dribble is ball movement (check) caused by a player in control (check) who bats or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times."

4-15-2: "During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before before the ball is touched again with the hand(s)." This is where the OP violated. If the ball had hit the floor, then all of the points in 4-15-1 would have been met, and therefore it would be a dribble.

Already covered exactly under 4.15.4 Sit E (a). It is not a violation because the pivot foot has never been lifted.


Actually, in the 2006-07 case book, it is listed as a dribble violation. It was subsequentially changed to be a traveling violation, but count me as one of the ones who doesn't understand why. :) It is a rule fundamental that a player cannot travel during a dribble.

So, let's say we call it that A1 "threw the ball somewhere", instead of calling it a dribble. There's 4.15.4 Sit C: "After dribbling and coming to a stop, A1 throws the ball: (a) against the opponent's backboard and catches the rebound, or (b) against an official, immediately recovers the ball and dribbles again. RULING: A1 has violated in both (a) and (b). Throwing the ball against an opponent's backboard or an official constitutes another dribble, provided A1 is the first to touch the ball after it strikes the official or the board." Again, another example of how the rule definition of dribble doesn't necessarily follow the accepted action of simply bouncing the ball on the floor, but it certainly includes that action.

According to your logic, anything that does not meet the definition of the action is an illegal something. I say that simply doesn't work, and I used the dribble/pass analogy to point that out. Anything that doesn't meet the definition of "anything" isn't an "illegal anything"; it's just not that "anything."

I think you miss my point. Your contention that anything that meets a definition is legal is disputed via 9-5, which defines an illegal action.

But I agree, there are a number of rules that could use a little work.

There we go. That was my point. If it didn't hit the floor (or more correctly, there was no push or throw toward it), it wasn't a dribble. (Notice you didn't mark "(check)" in 4-15-1 after "to the floor.") And if it's not a dribble, it can't be an illegal dribble. That's probably why it got changed to a "travel."

As for Case 4.15.4C, the opponent's backboard and officials count as the floor, hence counting as a dribble. It makes sense, really. To some, we're as valuable as a floorboard.

Ok, you lost me. Of course, it's not a dribble because it's an illegal dribble. I didn't check the "towards the floor", because that's what made it a violation - it was touched again by the same player before it hit the floor.

Cannot tell you why it was changed to a travel, as it is a rule fundamental that a player cannot travel during a dribble. The case play is still under the "dribble" section of the rules, and the play does not violate any pivot foot restrictions, which is of course, the basis for any traveling violation.

A player in control can hold, dribble, pass, shoot, or fumble on their own. You still maintain that it is not a dribble. Since the player has control, what is the player's action called then? And what rule do you use to specify what that action is called?

Ah, there lies where we part ways.

Your viewpoint: It's illegal, because it's not a dribble.
My viewpoint: It can't be an illegal dribble, until it's a dribble first. THEN, you determine whether it's legal or illegal.

And since it never was a dribble, it can't be an illegal dribble; therefore, travelling applies.

I can see your sticking point here. The best description I can provide is that the ball was touched twice, in two different places. (Initially, I thought travelling didn't apply, because there were no feet on the floor on the first touch, but I've since been proven wrong.) Two touches in two places without an established dribble = travelling, since the dribble never took place.

Uh, no. A player can dribble, and I still maintain it's not a dribble? Now you lost me.

The ball was released (pushed, batted) on it's way to the floor, that's what makes it a dribble, per 4-15-1 and 4-15-2. The fact that it never made it to the floor without being touched a second time by the same player then makes it a violation.

Unfortunately, you have no rules backing for the above statement. Where is that mentioned in 4-44, or any of the 4.44 case plays?

C'mon now - see in red above.

Again, you are maintaining it was never a dribble. So what was the action? And what rule do you use to back either assertion?

That is impossible...

Why? To be a "dribble" first means it has fit the definition of a dribble and is, therefore, not illegal (except for a 2nd dribble after the first has ended).

So, to ever have an illegal dribble other than a second dribble, the term illegal dribble can't depend on it being a dribble first.

I think the name of this particular violation (illegal dribble) is confusing the issue. You say that you cannot have an illegal dribble without first having a dribble. Consider other violations.

You cannot have traveling without first having a ______???

carry on bag?

Hey, Mark!

Hock mier en chinik

:D

I contend the same of you, sir.

Rule 4-15-1 clearly says a dribble commences when a ball is batted or pushed "to the floor." Rule 4-15-2 talked about a ball that was "batted," then striking the floor. Neither happened here, nor was there intent to get it to the floor. It was an intended throw to oneself, which is not a pass, nor is it a dribble, either.

I want to say travelling, but there's a problem with the aforementioned Case 4.15.4E(b). I have my hands on the latest NFHS rule/case book (2009-10), and there's no such (b) under 4.15.4E. Does anyone have the correct case number?

I certainly understand your it's-one-or-the-other paradigm, M&M, but I'm not about to call something it clearly isn't.

Better yet, consider any sports phrase with "illegal" in it:

*In basketball and football, an illegal use of hands requires a use of hands.
*In football, an illegal formation requires a formation.
*In hockey, an illegal stick certainly can't happen without a stick in question.
*And back to basketball: A player dribbles, holds the ball, then dribbles again. The second dribble is an illegal dribble. (I don't see what's so impossible about that, Cam.) Or, if you're touching the ball twice before it hits the ground, you're dribbling illegally.

The word "illegal" does not negate the noun. It recongizes the noun, or action, as being illegal.

Whatever you choose to call it, an intended throw to oneself is illegal.

Consider the following. A1 has ended his dribble. B1 rushes up. A1 momentarily forgets he has no dribble and tries to drive around B1. The ball strikes B1's foot before touching the floor, then goes out of bounds and hits the bleachers. What do you call?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.



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.

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.

Showing Your Age ...
 

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

That works for me, sir. Consider hands shaken.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? ;)

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".

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?

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.

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.

Photo ID?

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? :)

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.

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.

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.

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?

Care to name names? :)

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.

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.

Seriously ...
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron - as I read back through the thread, it seems as though in the beginning we actually agreed the initial post was the start of a dribble. I'm not sure where we got off track, other than perhaps you enjoy disagreeing with me. Did I knock over your sandcastle once in a former life? :)

Ok, we agree the action is a dribble. We just now disagree as to whether the "start of a dribble" happens when the ball leaves the hand, or only after it hits the floor the first time. My contention, and JR's contention (post #33), is that the dribble starts when it leaves the hand, and any action thereafter must fall within the guidelines of the dribble rule. (Such as touching it twice before it hits the floor.) The phrase "to the floor" indicates a direction, not a destination.

Pretty simple question - we all know the pivot foot cannot be lifted before the dribble is started, as per 4-15-3. If, as you believe, the dribble doesn't start until after the ball has hit the floor, then how come there is no travel violation if the pivot foot is lifted in between the ball leaving the hand and hitting the floor?

4-44-3c: The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.

Thanks, jar.

But I still won't agree with your stance on the blarge. ;) :p :D

Nah, half the fun is just discecting the rule. Doesn't matter who is takeing up the other point. At least I don't start call you an idiot for disagreeing with me. :)
This is where I don't necessarily agree. Note the pass rule...."to another player". Does that indicate direction or desitination? It is a destination...the case plays on that are quite clear.

I assert that it is not a dribble at all if it doesn't touch the floor. It always starts on the release, but you can't always be sure what it is until later.

EDIT: In fact, the dribble can be started by throwing the ball in absolutely ANY direction or distance, letting it bounce, the touching the ball again.....so how can "to the floor" be a direction?

I never claimed the dribble doesn't start until it hits the floor. It starts on the release, but you may not be able to determine if it was a dribble or not until other events happen.

For example, when a player pushes/throws the ball to the floor, is it a bounce pass or a dribble? It would, if it bounces to another player, end up being a pass. If it bounces back to the original ball hander, it would be a dribble.

When it left the hand it was either a pass or a dribble, but you can't tell which until it the next action occurs.

But, what if I am? :eek: :D

Not really; don't get too hung up on only final destinations. For example, A1 drives the lane, gathers the dribble, jumps in the air, and attempts a pass to a teammate in the corner. However the pass is too high, and the ball sails OOB on the sideline. So, where does the violation occur? If we take the case play literally, since A1's throw did not end up at another player, it is actually a dribble, thus A1 lifted the pivot foot before starting a dribble, or started a second dribble, and the throw-in should be along the endline. But we know the throw-in will be on the sideline where it went OOB. Why? Because the same player didn't recover it. A1 threw the ball to(wards) another player, but because A1 wasn't the first to retrieve it, it is still considered a pass, even though no other player actually touched it. In other words, "to another player" means the opposite of "the same player retrieving it".

Sometimes, but "later" can occur fairly quickly. In the example of the same player touching it twice before it hits the ground, after moving the feet, means it's a violation of 4-15-2. In other words, the same player touched the ball again before it hit the ground. It's not a violation if we know another player touched it before it hit the ground, which would make it a pass, or the same player touched it, which would make it an illegal dribble. We did have to wait to be able to tell; sometimes it's a fraction of a second, other times it may be a couple of seconds.

It brings in another non-basketball rule: gravity. Throw a ball in any direction, and it will hit the floor if it doesn't hit anything else first, right? Direction doesn't necessarily mean a straight line. ;)