Jump stop vs "up and down"
 

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?

Even though everyone in the gym will want a traveling violation. I cannot see why this move is any different from a legal jump stop. Am I right?

Thanks.

Traveling!!! in your own description is was a shot attempt and when A1 realize the shot was going to be block A1 decided to return to the floor with the ball.

Can you cite the rule which makes this a travel?

Rule 4-44

In the OP it was stated the player ended his dribble in an apparent shot attempt. So in my judgement A1 would have released the shot if B1 did not make an attempt to block it. But, since B1 made that attempt A1decided to returned to the floor with the ball.

Narrowed down the cite.....

Travel, no matter what.

But I still don't follow.

Imagine a completely legal jump stop. The player catches the ball (ends his dribble) with one foot on the floor and jumps off that foot and lands simulataneously on both feet (4-44-2b2). If he decides to shoot while in the air, that is legal. But if he lands on both feet at the same time, that is also legal. By rule, it does not matter if he intends to shoot or not.

Can you explain.

OK - is your name docofficial or drofficial? Hey guys - maybe he's one of those Russian spies! :eek:

I don't follow either.

Suppose A1 raises one foot as if to start a lay-up, sees that the shot will be blocked, and puts the foot back on the floor. That's not illegal (I don't htink), so I don't see why an otherwise-legal jump stop would be illegal.

Ok, imagine this A1 goes up for a layup and B1 jumps to block the shot. A1 realizes that the shot will be blocked, decides to return back to the floor with both feet landing simulataneously so his shot would not be block. You have the lifting/returning of the pivot foot to the floor. A1 had every intentions of taking a shot attempt.

Just because A1 lands with both feet does not constitute this a legal jump stop.

Assuming the other foot never touched the floor after ending the dribble until both feet landed simultaneously, this is not at travel.

If he jumped off the one foot, and the other foot had not touched the floor, he had no pivot foot.

If A1 ends his dribble with a foot on the floor, jumps off that foot with the intention to shoot but seeing B1 will block the shot decides to land with both feet simultaneously, are you saying you would call a travel? :confused:

Does anyone know of video to watch or purchase on line for travel and illegal dribble violations?

Yes, in my judgement if A1 ends the dribble to attempt a shot and realizes if the shot is release it will be blocked..

Based on what? Nothing in 4-44 mention what the player's intent was/might have been when he jumped and subsequently landed.

Could you site specifically which part of 4-44 you are using to call traveling?

Via what rule?

As written above, of course it's a travel by rule.

The player ended his dribble. It doesn't matter whether the player established a pivot foot while ending the dribble either. NFHS rules 4-44-3(b) and 4-44-4(a), as previously cited, both now say that the if the player then jumps to shoot, neither foot can return to the floor before that player shoots or passes.

You have to distinguish between the actual end of the dribble and the jump to shoot. As written above by yourself, A1 jumped to shoot, NOT to do a jump stop. And that's why it's traveling when he came down with the ball.

In 4-44-3 the player has established a pivot foot.

In 4-44-4 neither foot can be a pivot.

Neither of these apply to the play at hand.

4-44 Article 3...After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:

b. If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

That's the part that gets me. In my play, A1 hasn't established a pivot foot yet has he? He may have a pivot foot if the second foot touches the floor, or he may not have one if he executes a legal jump stop.

Legal move. Nothing in 4-44 prohibits it. It is a textbook jump stop.

The presence of B1 is irrelevant...the proximity of another player does not affect the travel rule.


It doesn't matter "why" the player jumped. The only things that matter are:

1. the fact that they caught the ball with only one foot on the floor
2. the fact that they jumped off of that foot without the other foot touching
3. the fact that they landed on both feet simultaneously

Having jumped off of one foot after catching the ball, no pivot has been established (defined in Articles 1 and 2). As such, Articles 3 and 4 do not apply...they are only relevant once the pivot is established.

Say what?:confused:

The original post said that "Player A1 ENDS his dribble and JUMPS OFF ONE FOOT IN AN APPARENT ATTEMPT TO TRY FOR GOAL."

A1's attempt was to try for goal!

After ending the dribble, A1 under NFHS rule 4-44-2 could either have already established a pivot foot or ended up landing on both feet simultaneously without establishing a pivot foot.

If A1 established a pivot foot, NFHS rule 4-44-3(b) says "After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot, if the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal."

If A1 didn't establish a pivot foot after ending his dribble, NFHS rule 4-44-4(a) says "After coming to a stop where neither foot may be a pivot, one or both feet may be lifted, but mat not be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal."

Traveling in both cases.

You people are confusing the end of the dribble with the player going airborne to shoot.

Camron, the above isn't applicable. The original post said that the dribble had ended. After the dribble ended, the player then jumped to shoot. You're talking above about the dribble not having ended. That's 2 completely different situations.

You can END a dribble with a jump stop. But if you do a jump stop AFTER a dribble has ended, you're traveling.

That's where all the confusion is coming in this thread.

Who You Gonna Call ??? Mythbusters ...
 

The shooter can retrieve his or her own airball, if the referee considers it to be a shot attempt. The release ends team control. It is not a violation for that player to start another dribble at that point. When an airborne player keeps control of an attempted shot that is blocked and is unable to release the ball and returns to the floor with it, that player has not traveled; it is a held ball. If, in this situation, the shooter loses control of the ball because of the block, then this is simply a blocked shot and play continues. If, in this situation, the defender simply touches the ball, and the airborne shooter returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation. When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and picks up the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.

I had a similar situation a few months ago:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...one-today.html

One has nothing to do with the other. He ended the dribble with one foot on the floor. He jumped, presumably to shoot, but then for whatever reason chose not to shoot. Instead, he landed simultaneously on both feet.

Legal play.

Is there a time limit?

4-44-2: A player ......... may stop and establish a pivot foot as follows.........


It never happens, but I don't see why the player couldn't catch the ball, then wait for any length of time before jumping off one foot and landing on two without a violation.

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.

And you're talking above about a player that HASN't ended their dribble. In the play being discussed, the dribble has ended. Iow, your play above is completely irrelevant.

That's what I'm trying to get through to everybody.

Not true.

4-44-2b: If one foot is on the floor, it is the pivot when the other foot touches in a step.

My understanding is that this never happened in the play at hand.

I see you need to read the whole thing.

4-44-2: A player, who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop, and establish a pivot foot as follows:

When he caught the ball, it ended.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

<font size = +3>A1 is NOT jumping off of one foot to do a jump stop!!!!</font size>

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.

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?

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.

http://generationbass.files.wordpres...nald-duck1.jpg

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

+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.

WOW, this is the most incorrect that I've ever seen JR be on this forum.

JR is incorrect about how the dribble ends.
JR is incorrect that the intent of the player matters.
JR is incorrect that this movement is traveling.

The play is a perfectly legal jump stop.

NFHS exam question...taken verbatim from above....

A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and B1 touches the ball in an attempt to block the try but B1's touch did not prevent A1 from passing or trying. A1 now returns to the floor on both feet simultaneously while still holding the ball. The official called A1 for traveling. Was the official correct?

True or False?



If B1 didn't touch the ball and A1 returned to the floor with the ball and landed with both feet simultaneously without shooting or passing it, did A1 travel?

Nevada et al? Answers?

The exam question is written with the assumption that A1 had both feet on the floor or had established a pivot prior to jumping.

I could just as easily post an NFHS exam question about a jump stop and ask for your answer. But like your post it wouldn't prove anything because it would not be specific to the circumstances of the play under discussion.

Just accept that you are not correct on this one.

Has this ever happened?

Ok, so the majority states that this is a legal jump stop. I am not still buying it!!!!!

So now we as officials are saying, as long as, A1 ENDS THE DRIBBLE, jumps off one foot for a shot attempt, realizes the ATTEMPT will be block, hold the ball; return to the floor with both feet hitting simulatanously that would be considered a legal JUMP STOP? GOT IT!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

And very early on the most relevant post, which should have decided this, is posted. Now I'll read the rest to see what the controversy is.

I see a problem. If judged that A1 gather the ball for a shot attempt and (Continous Motion) came into play (IN JUDGEMENT) and A1 GOT foul. Would that be considered a shooting foul after A1 gathered the ball for a shot attempt and return back to the floor?

Yeah, in the past JR has been man enough to admit when he is mistaken. Eventually, and after a great deal of wrangling.
Of course, it doesn't happen often because it isn't necessary often.

Determining the act of shooting involves a judgment decision by an official. Determining traveling does not. Traveling is based simply upon foot movement. All the official does is observe it.

Same scenario except

a. defender blocks the shot and A1 is unable to release the shot and returns to the floor with both feet
b. its a legal jump stop that the defender grabs and then A1 lands legally on both feet and regains sole control of the ball

so by some of your description NEITHER of these is a jump ball?

Thanks for all the good discussion.

Some of these latter posts are getting to the heart of the matter: there are some interesting implications if it's not a travel. I, frankly, think the jump stop should not be allowed. It's too difficult to officiate (we've got to watch the defender [referee the defense] and still observe if the feet come down simulateously, the offense already has enough advantage in this game - they don't need another move at their disposal, and per this discussion, a smart coach and player could use the rule as its written to a tremendous advantage.

a. If the touch by the defender prevents the release, it is a held ball.

b. Judgment call. It depends on whether or not "undue roughness" was needed to regain control.

I do think intent plays a roll in this call. I personally have a jump ball in scenario A that I gave and I do believe its a travel. The jump stop was never intended in how the OP phrased his question and in this case I would dare any of you officials NOT call this a travel at camp, or in any game of any importance.

I dont see how you can argue 2 different things here when you dont think this is a travel to begin with. If b is a judgement call to you then so should a.

a. is a held ball

I have a difficult time answering b. because your writing isn't clear. Was A1 airborne and attempting a try or pass which was prevented from being released? If so, then that would be a held ball as well, but if A1 was merely holding the ball and never tried to pass or shoot, then it wouldn't be a held ball as clearly control was able to be established without undue roughness.

BTW the proper term is held ball. A jump ball is when the referee tosses the ball in the center circle.

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.

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.

This is something not uncommon if you do girls/women's basketball. Not a criticism, just a reality due to the type of athletes involved. To me, the OP play described puts several rules into possible play, most have been discussed. IMO, intent would only come into play if there was a foul and it was up to the official to determine pass or shot, but I digress. How many times have we as officials mistook the intent of a 3 point shooter by putting our hand up, only to see the players 'intent' change? What about ball fakes? What about changing their minds in mid air? We are to judge players by what they do, not their intent* (* is for a few exceptions)
On a side note I thought it ironic that JR was lecturing on reading comprehension skills, but again, I digress!