Travel? Loss of Possession?

[johnsonboys03]

I'm not understanding some of the thought proccess. He didn't just "jump" he started the habitual motion that preceeds a release of the ball trying to score a goal...that is totally different by rule than a jump. The only legal things he can do from there before he touches the ground is release the ball on a pass or try for a goal. I've played this game for a long time and coached for a long time...only officiated for a short time but it's always been a travell. And when studying the rule it shows travell. Not saying I'm right I just haven't seen anything rule quote wise that is changing my mind

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

I'm not understanding some of the thought proccess. He didn't just "jump" he started the habitual motion that preceeds a release of the ball trying to score a goal...that is totally different by rule than a jump. The only legal things he can do from there before he touches the ground is release the ball on a pass or try for a goal. I've played this game for a long time and coached for a long time...only officiated for a short time but it's always been a travell. And when studying the rule it shows travell. Not saying I'm right I just haven't seen anything rule quote wise that is changing my mind

Rule 4-21 = "A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a players grasp"

Therefore whether a jump or a shot how can it be a travel if the player lost player control?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

I'm not understanding some of the thought proccess. He didn't just "jump" he started the habitual motion that preceeds a release of the ball trying to score a goal...that is totally different by rule than a jump. The only legal things he can do from there before he touches the ground is release the ball on a pass or try for a goal. I've played this game for a long time and coached for a long time...only officiated for a short time but it's always been a travell. And when studying the rule it shows travell. Not saying I'm right I just haven't seen anything rule quote wise that is changing my mind

Sadly, the thinking from all of your years of experience would give you the wrong ruling during an NCAA game.

So what does that tell you?

A.R. 82. After ending a dribble, A1 leaves the playing court to attempt a try for goal. While airborne, A1 fumbles the ball. A1 (a) recovers the fumble while airborne, or (b) recovers the fumble after returning to the floor. A1 dribbles the ball. The official calls a violation. Is the official correct? RULING: Yes. In (a) and (b) A1 is permitted to recover the ball but after recovering the ball, A1 started a second dribble. However, if a fumble is touched by another player and then recovered by A1, while airborne or after a return to the floor, A1 is allowed to start another dribble. If A1 had not previously dribbled the ball, and while airborne fumbled and recovered the ball (while airborne or after a return to the floor), he is permitted to start a dribble.

[johnsonboys03]

Like I said I'm not saying I'm right.
All my years of experience where at the high school level and not NCAA. I'm sure the rule may differ between the two.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

Like I said I'm not saying I'm right.
All my years of experience where at the high school level and not NCAA. I'm sure the rule may differ between the two.

Nope.

[johnsonboys03]

Ok I will look into this deeper. Thanks all

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sadly, the thinking from all of your years of experience would give you the wrong ruling during an NCAA game.

So what does that tell you?

A.R. 82. After ending a dribble, A1 leaves the playing court to attempt a try for goal. While airborne, A1 fumbles the ball. A1 (a) recovers the fumble while airborne, or (b) recovers the fumble after returning to the floor. A1 dribbles the ball. The official calls a violation. Is the official correct? RULING: Yes. In (a) and (b) A1 is permitted to recover the ball but after recovering the ball, A1 started a second dribble. However, if a fumble is touched by another player and then recovered by A1, while airborne or after a return to the floor, A1 is allowed to start another dribble. If A1 had not previously dribbled the ball, and while airborne fumbled and recovered the ball (while airborne or after a return to the floor), he is permitted to start a dribble.

The touch by the opponent has to cause a loss of control in order for A1 to dribble a second time, right?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CDurham

The touch by the opponent has to cause a loss of control in order for A1 to dribble a second time, right?

Or be during the lost control; and it doesn't have to be an opponent.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

I'm not understanding some of the thought proccess. He didn't just "jump" he started the habitual motion that preceeds a release of the ball trying to score a goal...that is totally different by rule than a jump. The only legal things he can do from there before he touches the ground is release the ball on a pass or try for a goal. I've played this game for a long time and coached for a long time...only officiated for a short time but it's always been a travell. And when studying the rule it shows travell. Not saying I'm right I just haven't seen anything rule quote wise that is changing my mind

You're hung up on the fact that it was a try; it doesn't matter. He could have jumped to pass, it's the same thing. You're not looking at the right rule; read the case play. By your logic, 4.44.3A would be a travel.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

I'm not understanding some of the thought proccess. He didn't just "jump" he started the habitual motion that preceeds a release of the ball trying to score a goal...that is totally different by rule than a jump. The only legal things he can do from there before he touches the ground is release the ball on a pass or try for a goal. I've played this game for a long time and coached for a long time...only officiated for a short time but it's always been a travell. And when studying the rule it shows travell. Not saying I'm right I just haven't seen anything rule quote wise that is changing my mind

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.)

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Bob,
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)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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. The only reasonable way for this to occur is to put all of these interpretations in 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.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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)?

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.