speaking of jump stops

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by rsl

A1 executes a legal jump stop, i.e., gathers the ball while on one foot, jumps from that foot and lands on two feet. Neither foot can be a pivot foot.

B1 immediately guards A1, and to prevent the ball from being stolen A1 turns his body from side to side. His feet both stay in contact with the ground, but "pivot" or spin on the floor with each turn of his body.

Is this a travel? Or just a nice dance move?

He may pivot, but not in the traditional sense. He may lift one of his feet and spin on the one that remains on the floor, but in doing so he may NOT return the airborne foot back to the floor.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

He may pivot, but not in the traditional sense. He may lift one of his feet and spin on the one that remains on the floor, but in doing so he may NOT return the airborne foot back to the floor.

I disagree. With both feet off the floor, 4-44-1 explains that when one foot leaves the floor, the other becomes the pivot.

In this situation, 4-44-2b2, "neither foot can be a pivot in this case." By lifting one foot, the other becomes the pivot which makes your action a violation.

[ajs8207]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I disagree. With both feet off the floor, 4-44-1 explains that when one foot leaves the floor, the other becomes the pivot.

In this situation, 4-44-2b2, "neither foot can be a pivot in this case." By lifting one foot, the other becomes the pivot which makes your action a violation.

It's not the pivot foot until he brings the food in the air back down. At that point its a travel. Not a travel if he has one foot in the air but doesn't bring it back to the ground.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by ajs8207

It's not the pivot foot until he brings the food in the air back down. At that point its a travel. Not a travel if he has one foot in the air but doesn't bring it back to the ground.

How do we explain:

"When one foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot."?

I know that these are in different articles, but the principle should still apply.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

How do we explain:

"When one foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot."?

I know that these are in different articles, but the principle should still apply.

You explain it by looking up the definition of a "pivot" in NFHS rule 4-35. That states that to have a pivot, the player must STEP once or more with the non-pivot foot. Simply raising a foot isn't a "step". And without a "step", you don't have a "pivot"

Also see NFHS rule 4-44-4(a)....After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot, 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." That's pretty definitive.

Btaylor had it right. Funny-looking ain't necessarily illegal.

[ajs8207]

Originally Posted by jurassic referee

you explain it by looking up the definition of a "pivot" in nfhs rule 4-35. That states that to have a pivot, the player must step once or more with the non-pivot foot. Simply raising a foot isn't a "step". And without a "step", you don't have a "pivot"

also see nfhs rule 4-44-4(a). That's pretty definitive.

Btaylor had it right. Funny-looking ain't necessarily illegal.

+1