The traveling rule defines legal foot movemnts...and nothing in that rule refers to anything about why the player jumped...only that they jump.

Intent to try is a red herring.

I see no reference to shooting in the traveling rule.

The case play you keep referring to is not applicable. It implies that the player jumped from two feet....therefore it is a travel when either foot comes down. It is NOT because they jumped to shoot. They could have just as well jumped to pass.

The OP has a player jumping after catching the ball only on one foot....different situation...different rule.

Regarding 4-44-4(a).....you can only get there by completing a jump stop (landing on two feet). That is the ONLY way you can end up in a situation where you have no pivot foot.

First you look at Art. 2 in establishing how they can come to a stop. In both Art. 2-a-3 and 2-b-2, "Neither foot can be a piviot in this case". Only after you get to that point does Article 4 become relevant/applicable.

Regarding 4.44.3SitA(b&c), it references rule 4-44-3 which is about "After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot"----which can only happen with both feet on the floor.

And unless the defender had his shoelace flop down on the OOB line. :rolleyes:

Yeah, exactly: you can continue to occupy that limb by yourself. :cool:

This reminds me of a conversation not long ago where people in one camp were contending that if A1 jumps to attempt a try then for whatever reason changes his mind and drops the ball to the ground they would immediately call a violation, even if A1 did not retrieve or touch the ball.

Only of the pivot foot has moved in excess of the limitations described in the rule.

While driving towards the basket, A1 gathers the ball with one foot on the floor. He jumps off of that foot, and in the official's judgment, intends to perform a jump stop. Before both his feet land simultaneously, he throws the ball in an attempt for goal. The ball obviously has a chance to enter the basket, and while on its downward flight, B1 slaps the ball away.

JR's ruling: No goaltending. This is not a try because A1 left the floor intending to do a jump stop, not try for goal.

Better yet, A1 gathers the ball and leaves the floor in a manner in which a jump stop may be performed. He leaves the floor intending to execute a jump stop. In mid-air he changes his mind and looks to shoot, however, he sees that his attempt would be blocked, so he hangs onto the ball and goes ahead with his originally intended jump stop. Upon his landing what does JR do? Does he call a travel because the player looked to shoot at one point or does he go with the player's original intent and allow him to have his jump stop?

:D

I don't know if we have any interpreters on this board, but I posed the OP's question to a long-time IAABO interpreter, and his ruling is a legal jump stop:

"As you are probably aware, a player who ends a dribble by catching the ball with one foot on the floor, may jump off that foot and land simultaneously on both feet. At that point, neither foot may be used as a pivot foot."

Shall we make it official and get a ruling from Scrapper? ;)

Who is Scapper?

Take Your Pick ...
 

No, he asked if the two were mutually exclusive; I don't see how they are.

First, bob jenkins wins the thread with this response.

Second, I'm with the majority on this. The rules JR is using to say that a player jumping to shoot can't legally return both prescribe conditions that aren't part of this sitch. It's awfully simple once it is parsed but he entrenched himself too deeply to back down now.

So, the alternative is stay where you are and be buried?

It is not surprising.