The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 11:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
...so I blow my whistle, and call a travel.
It maybe something or it maybe nothing. But it damn sure ain't traveling.

Traveling (running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while HOLDING the ball.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 11:55am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post
It maybe something or it maybe nothing. But it damn sure ain't traveling.

Traveling (running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while HOLDING the ball.
There are (as of now) two exceptions to this.

Throwing the ball in the air, moving your pivot foot beyond the limits, and then catching said ball is a travel.

Setting the ball on the floor, getting up from a sitting position, and picking the ball back up is a travel.

Billy's play is a sort of combination of the two that's not really addressed it seems. Since it's not addressed, is it legal?

What if A1 is trapped, already having used his dribble. He sets the ball on the floor and rolls it through B1's legs. Then he runs around the trap and picks up the ball off the roll.

Anything?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 01:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 95
Seems to me that this is another one of those "intent and purpose" situations. If we can accept that the rules intend there are only two ways for a player in control to advance the basketball (dribble it or pass it), then I agree this should be a violation. Problem is, this doesn't fit the definition of a player in control either, since he is neither holding nor dribbling a live ball inbounds.

I'm calling this a violation, and if I'm put to the test, I'm going to cite Rule 2-3.

Very interesting situation.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 01:15pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by jearef View Post

I'm calling this a violation, and if I'm put to the test, I'm going to cite Rule 2-3.
Rule 2-3 is there for situations that are not covered by the rules. So you're going to call a violation that you acknowledge is not a violation by rule?????
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 02:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
Rule 2-3 is there for situations that are not covered by the rules. So you're going to call a violation that you acknowledge is not a violation by rule?????
If we accept that logic, then Rule 2-3 would never be used. I believe 2-3 is an acknowledgment by the rules gurus that there are things they may not have anticipated in drafting and amending the rules, which things permit a player to gain an advantage that he shouldn't be getting.

I acknowledge that the situation presented does not appear to be specifically covered by any rule. It simply seems to me, as originally suggested by Billy, that in this situation the player is gaining an advantage that is not intended by the rules. I agree with Jurassic when he says that once we rule this a fumble, no further inquiry is necessary. If this is a fumble, I have nothing. However, a fumble is the "accidental" loss of player control. In reading the original post, I was of the opinion that Billy had determined that the player was "in control".
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 03:16pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
Rule 2-3 is there for situations that are not covered by the rules. So you're going to call a violation that you acknowledge is not a violation by rule?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by jearef View Post
If we accept that logic, then Rule 2-3 would never be used.
Absolutely 100% not true. Rule 2-3 may be used for other situations that arise during a game. But it should NOT be used to penalize actions which are not listed as illegal. (I'm including actions that fall under the catch-all "including, but not limited to. . .", even if they aren't specifically listed.) In fact, I was looking through old threads a while ago and found a discussion where I think 2-3 might legitimately apply. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the thread was now. But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 03:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.
+1

To put the point differently: rule 2-3 concerns situations not covered by the rules. All violations are defined by the rules, so one would never have occasion to call a violation using 2-3.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2011, 02:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
Absolutely 100% not true. Rule 2-3 may be used for other situations that arise during a game. But it should NOT be used to penalize actions which are not listed as illegal. (I'm including actions that fall under the catch-all "including, but not limited to. . .", even if they aren't specifically listed.) In fact, I was looking through old threads a while ago and found a discussion where I think 2-3 might legitimately apply. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the thread was now. But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.
Gosh, I've been wrong before, but "absolutely, 100%" wrong?

The point I was trying to make (and perhaps not doing a very good job of making) was this: Rule 2-3 very clearly provides that it is intended to allow us to deal with things that are not "specifically covered" by the rules. Your argument, as I understood it, is that I shouldn't use 2-3 in this circumstance, because it isn't covered in the rules. I believe that is exactly the situation where 2-3 should be, and was intended to be used.

Some would argue that violations are covered by the rules, and since this action isn't covered as a violation, it has to be legal and thus 2-3 isn't appropriate. I think that statement is way too broad. If we accept as correct the argument that says "if you can't explain why it's illegal, then it has to be legal", then 2-3 has no purpose, or at least none that I can see. If, on the other hand, we accept that the rules makers envisioned certain situations would arise which, although not specifically covered by the rules, would allow a player to gain an unfair advantage, then 2-3 becomes a useful tool.

I agree that the sitch is not traveling as the rule is written; nor is it double dribble as the rule is written. It just seems to me that the player here was attempting to gain an advantage not intended by the rules. I recognize that most here disagree, and I respect their opinions. You gotta love any play situation that gets us into the real nitty-gritty of the rules.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 01:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
There are (as of now) two exceptions to this.

Throwing the ball in the air, moving your pivot foot beyond the limits, and then catching said ball is a travel.
We all know said case play was always an illegal dribble until some idiot at the Fed changed it. The case play is not supported by rule.

Quote:
Setting the ball on the floor, getting up from a sitting position, and picking the ball back up is a travel.
That's a specific ruling that covers that one play, as the player is circumventing the rule.

Nope, the rule is quite clear. BillyMac's play is not traveling.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 05:23pm
Back from the DL
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Throwing the ball in the air, moving your pivot foot beyond the limits, and then catching said ball is a travel.
That's the basis why I'm leaning toward travelling in Billy's sitch.

If you hold the ball, intentionally throw it, move to another spot on the floor, and hold it again, it's a travel.

If you hold the ball, fumble it, then intentionally move it on the floor to a new spot, then hold it again, shouldn't it still be a travel?

While you certainly cannot penalize the fumble, I see just cause in the intentional movement. What difference does it make whether you intentionally move the ball from one spot to the other -- resulting in control on both ends -- via the air or the floor?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 05:53pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
If you hold the ball, fumble it, then intentionally move it on the floor to a new spot, then hold it again, shouldn't it still be a travel?
No. As per the definition of traveling in rule 4-44 you can only travel while holding the ball. See case book play 4.15.4SitD(d) also.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 05:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
That's the basis why I'm leaning toward travelling in Billy's sitch.

If you hold the ball, intentionally throw it, move to another spot on the floor, and hold it again, it's a travel.

If you hold the ball, fumble it, then intentionally move it on the floor to a new spot, then hold it again, shouldn't it still be a travel?

While you certainly cannot penalize the fumble, I see just cause in the intentional movement. What difference does it make whether you intentionally move the ball from one spot to the other -- resulting in control on both ends -- via the air or the floor?

Now bainsey thinks it's traveling to retrieve a fumble.

Nice job Billy Mac.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 07:54pm
Back from the DL
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post
Now bainsey thinks it's traveling to retrieve a fumble.
Wrong. That's not what I said.

And JR, of course you wouldn't whistle a travel until the ball is held, just as you wouldn't whistle it until you hold it after throwing it from a different place on the floor. Again, whether the ball moves through the air or on the floor, what does it matter?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2011, 07:56pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
Wrong. That's not what I said.

And JR, of course you wouldn't whistle a travel until the ball is held, just as you wouldn't whistle it until you hold it after throwing it from a different place on the floor. Again, whether the ball moves through the air or on the floor, what does it matter?
It doesn't, but the ball is never thrown in Billy's play.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2011, 10:48am
Back from the DL
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
It doesn't, but the ball is never thrown in Billy's play.
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the correct call? ozzy6900 Baseball 41 Fri Oct 24, 2008 05:33pm
Is My Call Correct? RCBSports Basketball 7 Mon Mar 17, 2008 04:12pm
Was this the correct call LouisianaDave Basketball 10 Wed Feb 14, 2007 04:32pm
Correct Call? scottbono Baseball 18 Thu Jun 30, 2005 08:36pm
What is the correct call ? msoa Basketball 14 Fri Jan 07, 2000 01:30am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1