Nevadaref, i cannot agree with this. I believe judgement is involved in all of this. If I deem that A1 jump off one foot in a shot attempt (ala Brandon Heyward of Butler half court attempt) and a Duke player jumped to block the shot and Heyward decided to return to the floor on both feet and attempt the shot again. Would that be considered a legal jump stop.

Come on!! we all know that calling traveling or not is a judgement call under normal game situation. This is why so many traveling calls are missed..

My answers come from the definition of a held ball.

In the first case, an airborne player was prevented from releasing a shot. By definition, this is clearly a held ball.

In the second, no mention is made of a shot attempt, so presumably the defender simply grabbed or attempted to grab the ball out of the hands of the offensive player. Held ball or not? Judgment call. The jump stop is irrelevant here.

To make or not make any call under a normal game situation requires judgment.
But the travel itself, by definition, is not a judgment call. Did the player move his foot illegally or didn't he?

That was the point that I was trying to make, but TR didn't understand it. Perhaps I didn't make my argument clearly. I'll try again with a different example.

Let's consider an OOB violation. There is no judgment involved in making this call. Either the player was observed contacting the OOB area or he wasn't. Or it is a simple matter of determining which player touched the ball last before it went OOB. These are factual decisions, not judgment decisions.

Except on that shot, the player ended his dribble with his right foot on the floor, steps with his left foot thus establishing his right foot as the pivot, and shoots off the left foot. If he would of tried to execute a jump stop, by rule the would of been a travel.

And the original poster determined that that it was an act of shooting with A1 as an airborne shooter. The original poster determined that A1 was not performing a jump stop. I answered the question solely on the facts given in the original post. The original poster made the judgment decision that A1 was an airborne shooter who came down with the ball and wasn't performing a jump stop.

Reading is fundamental and you're mis-reading the question asked in the original post.

I'm also done repeating myself with rules citations, including a case book play(4.44.3SitB&C) that contradicts you and is a duplicate of the situation described in the original post. I have seen nothing cited from anybody that would make me change my mind either.

Carry on carrying on.

And A1 in the original post was either an airborne shooter or was performing a jump stop. The original poster in the original post made the factual decision that A1 was an airborne shooter and wasn't performing a jump stop. That means that there is no judgment involved when an airborne shooter lands still holding the ball. That airborne shooter has traveled.

So A1 released the ball on a try for goal and had yet to land? :confused: (Definition of airborne shooter 4-1-1)
Wow, I certainly didn't see that in the original post at all. Obviously, reading is fundamental. :p

BTW have you listened to your own argument? Are you really contending that an official is permitted to deem that a player in the middle of executing a legal jump stop was trying for goal and because of that deem his otherwise legal movement a traveling violation? :eek:
That's just crazy!

No, I'm freaking-well telling you that docofficial in his original post deemed that A1 was trying for goal and was not executing a legal jump stop. I didn't deem a damn thing. I based my answers on docofficial's deemings.

Try comprehending what docofficial actually said in his original post.

And I think that what we're equally frustrated by trying to tell you is that the rules do not discriminate between intentions for leaving the floor. If a player leaves the floor and may permissibly execute a jump stop, then he can execute a jump stop regardless of his intent when he left the floor.

That would allow a player to change his mind in mid-air and return to the floor legally. The cases you've cited to the contrary all concern a player who may NOT permissibly execute a jump stop, because in those cases he has already established a pivot. Those cases do not count against the OP.

A1 leaves the floor intending to shoot. Seeing that his try will be blocked by B1, A1 now attempts to pass the ball to A2. B2 fouls A1 during this action to pass (before A1 releases the ball).

Shooting foul?

OH?

And what rule states that a player leaving the floor to SHOOT can then change his mind in mid-air and legally land on both feet simultaneously?

The rules sureashell DO discriminate between intentions. By rule, a player that has left the floor to SHOOT now has only two legal options before landing again. Shooting or passing! A player going up to shoot cannot change his mind and decide to do a jump stop instead. That's traveling as per the rules already cited.

If A1 gathers the ball off the dribble, jumps to shoot a lay-up and then changes his mind and just lands simultaneously on both feet instead, are you really telling me that's legal because the rules don't discriminate between intentions after leaving the floor? Ain't buying that, Mike.

And btw, you also seem to be ignoring rule 4-44-4(a) also where there is no pivot foot. And I haven't seen a comment either on casebook play 4.44.3SitA(b&c) which is the same as the situation outlined in the OP.

Nope.

But if instead of attempting to pass, A1 simply holds onto the ball and lands---> traveling?

Now you know better than to ask that. A basketball play is legal unless some rule prohibits it. Don't play burden tennis with me, buster! :)

The rules you cited assume that a pivot has been established. That's not the OP. I'm repeating myself (where's M&M when you need him?).

I don't think I'm ignoring 4-44-4(a). Here it is:
"ART. 4....After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot:
a. One or both feet may be lifted, but may not be returned to the floor before
the ball is released on a pass or try for goal."

In this rule there's no pivot foot because neither foot can be a pivot, for example AFTER a jump stop. That's NOT the OP, where there's no pivot foot because a pivot has yet to be established. As you so often intone: apples and oranges. :)

Here's the case play you cite:

4.44.3 SITUATION A: A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and: (a) slaps the
ball out of A1’s hands; (b) touches the ball but does not prevent A1 from releasing
the ball; (c) touches the ball and A1 returns to the floor holding the ball; or
(d) touches the ball and A1 drops it to the floor and touches it first after it
bounces. RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball remains live. In (c), a traveling violation.
In (d), a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. Since
the touching did not prevent the pass or try in (b), (c) and (d), the ball remains
live and subsequent action is covered by rules which apply to the situation.

Although you point us to (b) and (c) here, I'll mention the ruling in (d), which makes explicit the assumption of the entire case: a pivot foot had already been established by A1 before leaving the floor. That is NOT the OP, and so not relevant.

Once again: the only rules and cases that seem to support your opinion are those that assume or state that a pivot has already been established before the player leaves the floor. Since that is NOT the case in the OP, those rules and cases are irrelevant.

Many times you have urged me to reconsider my opinion when it was me against the world. Usually it's JAR in that position (sorry JAR -- cheap shot!), but you need to rethink this one, IMO.

And if the guy is performing a jump stop, legal or not, when one official signals block and the other signals PC, then you still only have to report one foul.:D

But wait! JR had the answer. Call a travel instead.