Jump stop vs "up and down"

[APG]

Casebook 4.44.2 Situation A: Dribbler A1 catches the ball with the right foot touching the floor and then jumps off that foot and alights on both feet simultaneously: (a) with feet parallel; or (b) with one foot in advance. Ruling: the positions of the feet has no significance, but they must come to the floor simultaneously. In both (a) and (b), it is a violation if A1 pivots on either foot.

In the ruling, A1 catches the ball with the right foot on the floor ending his dribble per 4-15-4(a) which states the dribble ends when "the dribbler caches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands." A1 then jumps off his right foot and lands with both feet simultaneously.

Isn't that a case of a player ending his dribble and continuing on with a jump stop?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Casebook 4.44.2 Situation A: Dribbler A1 catches the ball with the right foot touching the floor and then jumps off that foot and alights on both feet simultaneously: (a) with feet parallel; or (b) with one foot in advance. Ruling: the positions of the feet has no significance, but they must come to the floor simultaneously. In both (a) and (b), it is a violation if A1 pivots on either foot.

In the ruling, A1 catches the ball with the right foot on the floor ending his dribble per 4-15-4(a) which states the dribble ends when "the dribbler caches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands." A1 then jumps off his right foot and lands with both feet simultaneously.

Isn't that a case of a player ending his dribble and continuing on with a jump stop?

To most of us, yes.

[docofficial]

Now I am confused.

Here's the play again, in my mind, in simpliest terms. In a perfectly legal jumpstop, the player ends the dribble by catching the ball with one foot on the floor, and then jumping off that foot and landing simultaneously on both feet (neither of which can now be a pivot foot). Right. But that sequence of moves (ending dribble by catching the ball with one foot on the floor) happens all the time when players jump for a shot. So it occurs to me that, regardless of what the arms, hands, and ball are doing, the feet are doing the exact same thing when players perform a legal jumpstop and when players jump for a try. Thus it does not matter if they release the ball while airborne or not, as long as the return to the floor with both feet at same time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Can you cite a rule that backs up your statement that the above is a legal play? I've cited several that say that it isn't.

1) A1 ENDED the dribble. After ENDING the dribble, A1 now either has a pivot foot or he has two feet on the floor with neither being a pivot foot. It is now illegal by the rules that I cited in both cases for A1 to jump and then have a foot return to the ground before letting the ball go on a pass or shot. It doesn't matter whether A1 landed in a jump stop either. That's completely irrelevant by rule.

What you're trying to say is that a player can end a dribble, and AFTER ending that dribble, he can then continue on and do a jump stop. Don't think so. You can end a dribble with a jump stop, but you can't legally do a jump stop after ending a dribble.

I think you may be imagining a different play than the rest of us.

Plus, ending the dribble occurs the moment A1 catches the ball. After that, A1 may still execute a jump stop...that is basicaly the whole point of the referenced sections in the travel rule. The ending of the dribble doesn't preclude a subsequent jumpstop. If that were so, all jump stops would be illegal.

Note the part in red above. This is NOT the play being discussed. If, as you describe, A1 had established a pivot foot (by having the other foot touch the floor) or by executing a jump stop (having two feet on the floor with neither being a pivot) then it would certainly be illegal for A1 to jump and then land on either foot.

However, in the play at hand, that is not the sequence of events. The jump being discussed is before the 2nd foot touches and before both feet are on the ground after a jump stop....it is the jump part of the jump stop.

The question at hand is whether, during an otherwise legal jumpstop, can a player think about shooting (maybe even make arm motions that resemble the start of a try) and still complete the jump stop by landing.

[mbyron]

The move in the OP has to be legal. It's the same sequence as a jump stop. The definition of a jump stop does not mention whether a try intervenes between the moment the player has 1 foot on the floor and the moment when he has 2.

I'm with JAR and Camron here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by docofficial

Player A1 ends his dribble and jumps off one foot in an apparent attempt to try for a goal. Player B1 jumps to block the try. So A1 does not release the ball and lands on the floor with both feet simultaneously.

For the last time because I'm just repeating myself now...

This is the original post. A1 is jumping off of one foot to try for goal. Note---> "TO TRY FOR GOAL"! A1 is NOT jumping off of one foot to do a jump stop--i.e. to land on both feet simultaneously.

I repeat.....

A1 is NOT jumping off of one foot to do a jump stop!!!!

You people are all injecting something into the situation that is not only wrong but is completely irrelevant. You're all trying to say that A1 was NOT jumping for goal as written explicitly above, but is doing a jump-stop instead.

Reading Is Fundamental!!!!

The rules that I cited definitively cover what a player jumping to try for goal can legally do and not do. And what a player jumping for a try on goal can't legally do is come back down with the ball.

Again, we're discussing a player jumping for goal and coming down with the ball. We're NOT discussing a player executing a jump-stop. That's a completely different scenario than the one outlined in the original post above.

[mbyron]

JR, I don't think 4-44-3 applies, since it is prefaced by "After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot," which the player in the OP has NOT done. Therefore the restriction of 4-44-3b, which prevents the shooter from coming down with the ball, does not apply.

So we need to ask whether 4-44-2 applies and he's established a pivot. It seems to me that the OP meets exactly the conditions of 4-44-2a3:
"A player, who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop,
and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. If both feet are off the floor and the player lands:
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land
on both. Neither foot can be a pivot in this case."

The player in the OP has ended the dribble and landed on one foot. Since the other foot did NOT come down, he has NOT established a pivot. Thus he can go up and come down on both feet (a jump stop), whether or not the reason he went up was for a try.

What am I missing?

[Mark Padgett]

Here's how I see it. If it looks like a travel, walks like a travel and quacks like a travel - it's a travel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What am I missing?

You're missing that A1 went up to shoot. A1 did not go up to do a jump stop. It's that simple, Mike.

If you establish a pivot foot before you go up and shoot(usual situation), rule 4-44-3(b) applies. That's true for both ending a dribble with a jump shot or a lay-up.

If you don't have a pivot foot established(as in after a simultaneous landing on both feet a la a jump stop), then rule 4-44-4(a) applies if a player then goes up and shoots.

In the OP, I don't care how A1 ended his dribble. I don't care if it was via a jump stop, a regular stop or if he stuck a landing off the parallel bars while dribbling. That's all completely irrelevant to the question that was asked. The question asked was what is the call if A1 leaves his feet to shoot but comes back down with the ball instead. Simple question with a very simple answer. Traveling.

All that matters rules-wise is that we know A1 went up to shoot. And we know that because the original post told us so. It sureashell didn't tell us that A1 went up to do a jump stop.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're missing that A1 went up to shoot. A1 did not go up to do a jump stop. It's that simple, Mike.

Quote the rule which explains the difference between "going up to shoot" and "going up to do a jump stop."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by docofficial

Player A1 ends his dribble and jumps off one foot in an apparent attempt to try for a goal. Player B1 jumps to block the try. So A1 does not release the ball and lands on the floor with both feet simultaneously.

What is the ruling here?

Again, here is the question.

A1 jumps off one foot to try for goal. A1 does not release the ball on the try but comes back down with it.

Forget everything else!! Answer solely with the facts that you know, which is that A1 jumped to shoot and then came back down with the ball. What happened before A1 went up to shoot is completely irrelevant to the question being asked.

If you saw this question as written above on an exam, what would your answer be?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Answer solely with the facts that you know, which is that A1 jumped to shoot and then came back down with the ball.

Even if this mattered, how is it a fact that you know?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Quote the rule which explains the difference between "going up to shoot" and "going up to do a jump stop."

Whatinthehell are you talking about? What has that got to do with what we're discussing- in any way, shape or form?

The original post told us that A1 went up to shoot. Period! There are rules that govern what happens if A1 doesn't shoot and comes down with the ball instead. Those rules have been cited.

Nowhere in this thread was it ever stated that A1 went up to do a jump stop. You..and others...have confused everybody by trying to work in something that never happened. I could care less what the rule is for "going up to do a jump stop". That rule is completely irrelevant because it has NOTHING to do with the situation being discussed and the question that was asked in the OP.

All anybody has to do is read the original post. It's the simplest call on the world if you do that.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Quote the rule which explains the difference between "going up to shoot" and "going up to do a jump stop."

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Whatinthehell are you talking about? What has that got to do with what we're discussing- in any way, shape or form?

It seems to be the cornerstone of your whole argument. The player can end the dribble and execute a jump stop. (jump off one foot, land on two) Unless he had the intent to shoot when he jumped, in which case when he lands it's a travel.

You haven't quoted anything which remotely states this.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The player can end the dribble and execute a jump stop. (jump off one foot, land on two) Unless he had the intent to shoot when he jumped, in which case when he lands it's a travel.

You haven't quoted anything which remotely states this.

+1

A jump stop is legal. A player who otherwise meets the conditions for executing a jump stop goes for a try instead. He changes his mind and finishes the jump stop. Legal.

A player leaves the floor without having established a pivot. He may:
a. shoot, pass, or call a time out; or
b. return to the floor with both feet (neither may be the pivot).

No rule says that if this player goes up for shot he cannot come down in a jump stop.

What we used to call "up and down" is a violation only because the pivot foot has been established. That is NOT the case in the OP.