Jump stop vs "up and down"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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!

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.

[mbyron]

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. 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.

[bob jenkins]

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?

Nope.

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

[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.

[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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

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!

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.

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?).

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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?