Travel? Loss of Possession?

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Can you describe where his feet were when the last dribble occurred or the last touch occurred? Based on your description, the player was dribbling the ball and jumped into the air. You did not indicate that the player picked up his dribble -- you simply indicated that the ball slipped from his grasp (on the dribble or did he attempt to pick up the dribble with both hands). You then indicated that the ball ended up over his head (is this a case of a high dribble?). Doing all of this while in the air. Where his feet were when the last touch was made is relevant. If he does all of this while his feet are in the air, I cannot see how the play can be ruled a travel -- assuming the feet were off the ground when the last dribble occurred.

By definition, per 4-44, "traveling is moving the foot or feet in any direction in excess of the prescribed limits while HOLDING the ball." I find it hard to see a travel in this play unless the feet are doing more than has been described.

Okay lets see if I can be clearer. He was dribbling. Stopped. Jumped. And somehow the ball was fumbled in the judgement of the officials (dont disagree they had a great look at it) and the ball continued to go upward in direction. It wasnt a shot. The player then regained control of the ball. And landed. Hope this helped.

[Twinfan]

Back to a travel call then. He left the floor in control of the ball. His legal options while in the air are pass or shoot. He came back down in control of the ball, he had not passed or shot - travel is the violation.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Twinfan

Back to a travel call then. He left the floor in control of the ball. His legal options while in the air are pass or shoot. He came back down in control of the ball, he had not passed or shot - travel is the violation.

What about the fumble? Which is accidental loss of player control. If he loses player control on his fumble how can you have a travel when he re-gains the ball and lands?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Twinfan

Back to a travel call then. He left the floor in control of the ball. His legal options while in the air are pass or shoot. He came back down in control of the ball, he had not passed or shot - travel is the violation.

Wrong, the fumble changes everything.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Wrong, the fumble changes everything.

Snaq, not making fun or being disrespectful, but is it that difficult to understand?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CDurham

Snaq, not making fun or being disrespectful, but is it that difficult to understand?

No, it's not. That said, I noticed that our Twinfan is from Canada. That means he might be commenting from a more, uh, metric perspective. Perhaps this play is ruled differently in metric rules.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, it's not. That said, I noticed that our Twinfan is from Canada. That means he might be commenting from a more, uh, metric perspective. Perhaps this play is ruled differently in metric rules.

Could be. We haven't integrated to the metric system down south yet. Maybe soon though.

[Nevadaref]

Very good previous discussion of this in these old threads:

Airborne Fumble - Rule question.

Shooter Unintentionally Drops the Ball

Travel?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Wrong, the fumble changes everything.

This is the only written NFHS ruling that I've ever seen on this action.

2000-2001 BASKETBALL INTERPRETATIONS
SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4—43-3a; 94)

Just saying...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the only written NFHS ruling that I've ever seen on this action.

2000-2001 BASKETBALL INTERPRETATIONS
SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4—43-3a; 94)

Just saying...

Soooooooo?

If A1 is an airborne shooter, fumbles the ball, grabs it again in the air without it being touched by another player and then lands with the ball, using the same logic it's also traveling because the ball was never released on a pass or a try?

Just asking.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Soooooooo?

If A1 is an airborne shooter, fumbles the ball, grabs it again in the air without it being touched by another player and then lands with the ball, using the same logic it's also traveling because the ball was never released on a pass or a try?

Just asking.....

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.

[johnsonboys03]

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

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the only written NFHS ruling that I've ever seen on this action.

2000-2001 BASKETBALL INTERPRETATIONS
SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4—43-3a; 94)

Just saying...

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...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the only written NFHS ruling that I've ever seen on this action.

2000-2001 BASKETBALL INTERPRETATIONS
SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4—43-3a; 94)

Just saying...

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Twinfan

Back to a travel call then. He left the floor in control of the ball. His legal options while in the air are pass or shoot. He came back down in control of the ball, he had not passed or shot - travel is the violation.

Why are you all assuming that he was jumping for a try or a pass? This could have been a jump stop. If you judge that he was passing or it was a try then I agree, travel. However, a player can leap off of one foot and land simultaneously on both feet and not be called for a travel. In this case I know of no rule or case book play that says a momentary loss of control constitutes a travel.