Jump stop vs "up and down"

[docofficial]

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.

[truerookie]

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.

[docofficial]

Can you cite the rule which makes this a travel?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by docofficial

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Rule 4-44-3(b) or 4-44-4(a), depending on whether a pivot foot was established at the end of the dribble or not.

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.

[drofficial]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by drofficial

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.

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.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by drofficial

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, 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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by docofficial

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.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by truerookie

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.

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by truerookie

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.

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?

[johnny1784]

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

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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?

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by truerookie

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.