Jump stop vs "up and down"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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?
That's just crazy!

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope.

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

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

[sseltser]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by sseltser

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. ....

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?

[bainsey]

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."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I posed the OP's question to a long-time IAABO interpreter...

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Shall we make it official and get a ruling from Scapper?

Who is Scapper?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Who is Scapper?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

It is not surprising.