I don't have my books with me
 

Doesn't the case play have the ball fall to floor and then he is the first to touch it? Also, this is only if he jumps for a pass or an attempt. What if he is jumping off of one foot to begin a jump stop? He is not attempting a shot or a pass. The rule is clear that you can't lift your pivot foot and return it to the floor before releasing the ball on a pass or try, but the rule is also clear that you can jump off of one foot and land with both feet simultaneously and not be a travel.

If you've been assuming all along it's a jump stop, that's different. Based on the OP's assumption that if it wasn't a fumble, it was a travel, I'm not considering a jump stop on this play.

Fair enough
 

I have always envisioned this as a jump stop.

Because of this, for one thing.

The player stopped before he jumped.

If it's a jump stop, you're right. No travel regardless of the momentary release of the ball; which I've already stated.

Now that I'm actually reading the case play, I see that 4.44.3A isn't applicable at all. It involves a defender hitting the ball, so the "fumble" question isn't addressed in this case. As Nevada points out, the only relevant interp is from 2000-2001, but calling a travel because the player didn't release a pass or try is wrong-headed. By that logic, a player couldn't request a timeout. By that logic, a player couldn't even fumble it to a teammate without traveling.

I have raised this issue before, but I think it is worth highlighting, again. If the NFHS expects ALL officials to have knowledge of these interpretations, the NFHS MUST make ALL interpretations that are still in effect available to ALL officials -- not just those who regularly visit the officiating.com forum, the nfhs forum or other related forum.

The only reasonable way for this to occur is to put ALL of these interpretations in the Case Book. Even if ALL of those not already included would be added, it couldn't add more than 20 pages to the Case Book.

Once again, if the NFHS wants all brand new, second year, tenth year and thirtieth year officials to be enforcing these interps, it is incumbent upon the NFHS to deliver these rulings SOMEHOW. Even if the NFHS added a publication called Still Valid Past Interpretations, the information would be "reasonably" available for all officials. Otherwise, it is not reasonable to expect new officials (or even experienced ones who don't have access to these interps -- this one is TEN YEARS OLD...How many officials have been an official for less than 10 years???) to get this information AND enforce these interps in their games.

There, I feel better now...

Yep, and by the logic of that interp, this would be a travel regardless of who recovers the fumble. By that logic, it would be a travel if airborne A1's shot attempt was prevented from being released by B1's block. Or even 4.44.3A sit a.

In the "real world," calling this a travel will likely get an official in less trouble than calling it legal.

That doesn't make it right.

And, despite Nevada's 2001 Interp, I seem to recall a later interp (or rule, or fundamental, or ...) to the effect that "a player can always recover a fumble." (Maybe I'm just thinking of the NCAA AR.)

Bob,
This just serves to prove my point. Here we have THREE VERY EXPERIENCED and VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE officials who are struggling to nail this one with 100% certainty. I thought I remember the quote you mention about recovering a fumble as well, but I am not sure. If the NFHS would simply keep all interps that are still valid in a publication all NFHS officials receive, this situation would be easier to know what to call.

I agree with that.

There's also an issue when a case is dropped without comment. Is it still valid (and was dropped for "space") or is it no longer valid (dropped because a rules change or subsequent interp)?

That's funny because 2 seasons ago I had a play that I described in the forum in which in the last 5 seconds of a tie game (NFHS) A1 jumped to shoot a long 3-pointer, while he was in the air the ball flew out of his hands, he landed, and then caught ball. I called a travel, saying I based my call on essentially the logic above.

You (meaning Nevada Ref) said you would not have called it a travel because it was a fumble.

The NFHS Version Of War And Peace ???
 

I agree with both of you. I would be one of the first to purchase "Still Valid Past Interpretations" if such a publication existed.

Why is it that only Dr. Naismith, and Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., have access to the 1891-92 interpretations? It's not fair I tell you. It's blatant age discrimation. No doubt about it.

we are assuming it is for a shot because that is what the original post said. Also the book says that a shot starts by the habitual motion that preceeds a try for a goal....

the book does show a held ball if A1 was unable to release the ball due to B1 touching the ball while in the air

???? And??