Snaq, could you (or anyone out there) give me a citation regarding this being a travel? I'm just asking to help settle an argument between another official and myself regarding this exact situation. Thanks.

4.44.5 SITUATION B: A1 dives for a loose ball and slides after gaining control.
A1 is in a position either on his/her back or stomach. What can A1 do without
violating? RULING: A1 may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a time-out. Once
A1 has the ball and is no longer sliding, he/she may not roll over. If flat on his/her
back, A1 may sit up without violating. Any attempt to get to the feet is traveling
unless A1 is dribbling. It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises
and is first to touch the ball. (4-44-5b)

4.44.5B (last year's book)

Many thanks to both of you! I can never seem to find anything when I need to in that case book!

JAR is right, you have to judge whether it's a dribble or not. The criteria I gave is a rule of thumb; it's the same rule of thumb I use to determine whether a player is a dribbler for the purposes of 9-3-1 Note (OOB violation).

True, but what is a throw? It's an intentional movement of the ball through the air.

In Billy's play, the player intentionally moved the ball on the floor.

I don't see a difference.

You grab the ball to throw it. When you grab it, you also "HOLD" it. That establishes player control. Tapping the ball in the air or batting the ball along the ground does NOT establish player control because the ball never comes to rest in the batter/tipper's hand(s).

That's the (very obvious ) difference. Ray Charles could see that.

Basics, bainsey, basics.

All true, JR, but the fact being ignored here is that the player in Billy's sitch HAD control earlier, then fumbled. If you think that doesn't matter, consider this...

*Airborne version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 releases the ball, and it's not a try for goal. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 moves to another spot on the court, and catches the ball. (Player control.) Travelling.

*Ground version: A-1 holds the ball. (Player control.) A-1 fumbles the ball. (Player control ends, team control remains.) A-1 bats the ball on the floor, no-one else touches it, and picks it up at another spot on the floor. (Player control.) Travelling.

A shot would certainly end team control, but a fumble does not. Whether you get from point A to point B by plane or train, you still get there.

Lot of difference in catching a thrown ball and recovering one that was fumbled.

Even your airborne version is legal if, instead of "releases" the ball, you change it to "fumbles." Apples need to be compared with apples, not blueberries.

It's not about team control, it's about player control. A player may always retrieve a fumble. This is the same concept as the rebound tipped into the BC by the offense. Even if you're 100% sure he did it on purpose and the ball went precisely where it was supposed to go, player control is not established. You just can't go there.

Snaq, are you saying this would be a legal play?

I wouldn't. Even if the rules do not expressly prohibit it, it is an advantage not intended by the rules.

We have at least a few case plays that establish that when a player who is holding the ball deliberately releases the ball such that it is not a dribble, a try, or a pass, they are effectively considered to have been holding the ball the entire time as far as the traveling rules are concerned when they again pick up the ball.

That sitch is about TEAM control, not player control. Team control has to be established in the front court for a backcourt violation to exist.

A fumble does not wipe the slate clean. Consider fumble-dribble-fumble vs. dribble-fumble-dribble. The former is legal; the latter is not --assuming there's a ball hold before the second dribble -- because you still have two dribbles.

The fumble was fine, until the player started directing the ball to another spot. Once he gained control a second time, I have a travel.

The concept is the same, though, in that player control must be established in this situation in order to establish team control. It is about player control, whether or not you want to agree.

And again, directing the ball to a spot does not constitute player control, or the rebound play I just mentioned would be a violation. A controlled bat does not equal control, no matter how much you want it to.

Exactly. The only differences between this and the "sets the ball down" play are that the ball rolls (and who's to say it isn't rolling slightly in the book play) and we're talking pivot foot restrictions rather than getting up.

The difference between my play and Billy's play is that Billy's player loses control and fumbles. If a player lying on the floor fumbles it, he can then get up and retrieve it.