![]() |
|
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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:
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". |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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? |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
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? |
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
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. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |