Passing ball to self
 

A1 is stationary. A1 tosses ball up and catches it, while never lifting pivot. Legal?

What rule would A1 violate if A1 tosses the ball up and then runs to catch it before the ball touches the floor? I know this case is illegal, but I do not know where in the rules book says that it's illegal. Some people say that it's traveling. Others say that it's an illegal dribble.

Legal.



Traveling



Case book 4.44.3 D

Just want to point out a technicality...

It's impossible to pass the ball to oneself by rule due to the very definition of a pass. ;)

Similar scenario
 

This reminds me of a question a coached asked me in the Spring. After a game, his team had been playing in the other gym, he asked me: If player A1 saves the ball from going out of bounds and then runs inbounds and is the first to catch the ball. Is this legal?

The coach went on to say that he has heard many explanations on both sides of the debate on whether this is legal or not. From the scenario described I couldn't think of why this wouldn't be legal. But of course I responded to the coach: "had to be there coach, not sure what the official saw or if the player might have still been stepping out of bounds."

But as I think about it, I'm not certain either way. Thoughts on this play?

jar gave you the appropriate case play but the case play is wrong. By rule, it's an illegal dribble. Traveling is moving the pivot foot outside prescribed limits while HOLDING the ball. A1 isn't holding the ball when he lifts his pivot.

The correct ruling was listed for years. Then, a few seasons ago, some Einstein changed the ruling.

The play is legal. There's a case play under 7.1. Take a look.

That's the one.

Perfect. Thank you.

Too many people confusing what they see in the NBA compared to the high school rules.

And too many officials, at all levels, misunderstanding the college "first to touch" rule. They then misapply it in a game for which it's not even a rule.

And think it's the NFL and that both feet need to be inbounds to reestablish themselves.

It depends on how he "saves" it, how he "catches" it and what he had done prior to needeing to "save" it.

If the case play is wrong, and if that supposedly an illegal dribble, then shouldn't it be an illegal dribble in my first scenario? In my first scenario, A1 ends his dribble, throws the ball straight up and then catches it before it touches the floor. Shouldn't that be an illegal dribble whether A1 took several steps or not?

Of course not.

Well, yes. The case book clearly explains it, but not the rules book.

It violated rule 4-44-3a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

However if A1 never established a pivot foot the rule doesn't cover that as a traveling violation. So it would have to be an illegal dribble. However I can't find in the rule book or case book anything that refers to it as an illegal dribble.

And the case play cited refers you to rule 9-4 which in turn refers you to rule 4-44.

I get it now. I was totally disregarding the fact that the pivot foot may not be return back to the floor if the pass hasn't touch another player. The problem was that I thought traveling can only occur when a player is holding the ball.

4.44.3 SITUATION B: A1 receives the ball with both feet off the floor and he/she lands simultaneously on both feet without establishing a pivot foot. A1 then jumps off both feet in an attempt to try for goal, but realizing the shot may be blocked, A1 drops the ball to the floor and dribbles. RULING: A1 has traveled as one foot must be considered to be the pivot and must be on the floor when the ball is released to start a dribble. The fact that no pivot foot had been established does not alter this ruling.

Bball ref: So you are saying it is always legal??? So if a guy goes to save the ball and cups it in a controlled manner and gently tosses it back onto the floor, re-establishes himself on the floor, that is legal, under HS rules is what I'm asking. I definitely believe it is legal if a player just bats/smacks the ball (no control) and comes back onto the floor and is the first to touch bc he had never controlled the ball.

Yes it is legal if A1 has not used his dribble yet. No different than if A1 is standing by himself and throws the ball in front him and goes to retrieve it after it bounces. If he had not used his dribble it is legal, if has already used his dribble than you have an illegal dribble.

Over-thinking, again . . .
 

It seems we're addressing several different situations in this thread. When A1 throws the ball and moves his pivot foot to catch the ball before it hits the floor, it is considered to be traveling, 4.44.3 D (b), because the ball did not touch the floor, therefore the toss of the ball doesn't meet the definition of the start of a dribble, 4-15-3. Yes, it is a vague, (actually not mentioned) part of the travel rule, but understood and accepted universally, that even though A1 is not holding the ball, during the movement of the pivot foot, it is traveling, to throw the ball and then catch it after moving the pivot foot, and before the ball touches the floor, or another player, or his own backbourd. Hence, the description of "passing the ball to oneself", is illegal. (Of course, we get into the facet of whether the toss of the ball was judged by the covering official to be a valid shot attempt, but that is yet another adjunct to the discussion.)
When the ball is again controlled by A1, after the ball has hit the floor, the element of whether A1 had used his dribble, before the toss, comes into consideration, in judging whether the actions constitute a double dribble. 7.1.1 considers that the ball hits the floor, inbounds, before A1 again controls it.
Although the following scenario is highly unlikely, it may illustrate the differences noted above: Supposing that A1 leaps in the air, catches the ball that was headed out-of-bounds, tosses it high enough so that after A1 lands out-of-bounds, he recovers and returns inbounds and then catches the ball, before it hits the floor. Is there a violation? In my thoughts, because A1 was airborne when he caught the ball, and threw it back over the playing surface, there would be no violation. However, if A1 had a foot or feet touching the playing surface and tossed the ball high enough so that after his momentum carried him out-of-bounds, he recovered, re-established himself inbounds, and then caught the ball before it hit the playing surface, we would consider his actions to be traveling, as expressed above.
Ah, the minutia of it all . . .

Can you tell me why it should be an illegal dribble and not traveling? You said by rule, but which rule?

If you consider the toss of the ball as the start of the dribble, then the player has violated by not permitting the ball to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s) as is required by 4-15-2.

In reality, no coach is going to get on your case if you call an illegal dribble/travel.

I have no idea what that means. Your pivot foot has nothing to do with when or whther another player touches the ball.

You are correct that a player cannot travel unless he is holding the ball, with one exception.

Quote:

4.44.3 SITUATION B:

The case play has nothing to do with the play you originally posted.

The player has violated even if he never moved his pivot foot?

Yes, it's always legal. The original question concerned whether a player could save a ball from going OOB, go OOB himself and then return and be the first touch the ball. Yes he can.

Now, the play you describe is legal. However, if he controls the ball, throws it back inbounds, returns and catches the ball, he cannot legally dribble the ball, as he has essentially already used his dribble.

No. He has violated if he tosses the ball, runs and touches it before it hits the floor. The toss is considered the start of a dribble.

4-44-1. With one exception, you have to be holding the ball to travel.

That rule simply does not apply to the original post.

This rule covers a player who jumps and returns to the floor before he releases the ball.

The original play had the player throwing the ball, running and touching the ball before it hit the floor. That's a completely different scenario.

Yea I know. I posted that on impulse.

No, we've already established that that scenario is legal...a stationary player to toss and catch the ball without moving the pivot foot.

Very true, and hopefully now that she has moved on from the NFHS, we can get this silly change reversed and have it once again deemed an illegal dribble.

I know what the OP asked. In the literal sense it means A1 lifted his pivot and returned it to the floor before passing or shooting the ball, which is exactly what 4-44-3a says. 4-44-3b is what addresses a player who jumps. Everyone is telling Wade it's an illegal dribble but no one has posted a rule showing it to be an illegal dribble. 4-44-1 most definitely doesn't tell anybody it's an illegal dribble nor does any part of 9-5.

Struckoff (sp??) may be an idiot but complaining about her doesn't help as far as citing a current rule or case play for this scenario.

Yes, it's an illegal play. But the rules book isn't well written. The case book may ruled it as traveling, but the traveling rule is too vague to support the ruling. And some of these folks say that the correct ruling is a double dribble and that the ruling was incorrectly changed by a dumb bimbo.

Dribble
Art. 3. During a dribble, the ball may be batted into the air, provided that it
is permitted to strike the playing court one or more times before the ball is
touched again with either hand.

According to this rule, I pretty sure that's an illegal dribble violation in both situation.

#1, Who said Struckoff was an idiot?

#2, as for the rules, 4-15-1 & 2 are the pertinent rules as it describes the action. Since the release of the ball is not a pass, shot or fumble, that leaves a dribble. When the player releases it and touches it again before it touches the floor, it's an illegal dribble.

#3, finally, the last rule to apply is 4-44.
Traveling (running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while HOLDING the ball.

You cannot travel without HOLDING the ball except as in 4.44.5B which is an identified circumvent of the rules.

In 4-44-3a, the player lifts AND returns the pivot to the floor while still HOLDING the ball.

In 4-44-3b, the player jumps AND returns to the floor while still HOLDING the ball.

You cannot travel without HOLDING the ball.

Just call it, and let the signal be secondary to the call on this issue.

It that were strictly true, the case of a player tossing the ball in the air while not moving the feet would also be an illegal dribble. However, that play only becomes a violation of the player moves their feet between throwing and catching the ball.

I think this case really falls between the two rules (travel and illegal dribble) and is judged to be an unintended action and is arbitrarily lumped with one of the two rules by declaration since neither really cover it exactly.

It's in between the two
 

I tend to agree with Camron, that the situation is in between the two rules -- traveling and double dribble. 4-15-1 defines a dribble as "... bats (batting) or pushes (pushing) the ball "to the floor" and in the case of a player catching the ball before it hits the floor, the basic definition of a dribble has not been met.
Also, 4-15-3 defines the manner in which a dribble is started, and uses the same qualifier "to the floor", which indicates that if the ball does not strike the floor, a dribble has not been started. Thus, to toss the ball, and catch it before it hits the floor, cannot be a dribble, nor could it be a double dribble, to do so, after the player had already ended a legal dribble.
Then, we have the definition of traveling with an integral part of the travleing definition refering to a player "holding the ball." So, a player tossing the ball into the air, after having established a pivot foot, and then moving that pivot foot before catching the ball, must not be a travleing violation, by the strict reading of 4-44.
We know that we would call the violation. But whether we clasify it as an illegal dribble, or a travel becomes a case of semantics.
(Isn't it ineresting how off-season discussions lend themselves to such thoughts and discussions?)

At the heart of this is the history of the "air dribble." If one reads the NFHS handbook, he will learn that for a time period this action was allowed. The player could progress down the court while tapping the ball into the air repeatedly without allowing it to strike the floor.
This action was changed to illegal and "to the floor" is now the important part of the definition of a dribble.

As the game is now played, in order for the players to move the ball from one end of the court to the other, they must either pass or dribble the ball. Why? So that the opponents have an opportunity to obtain it. This is not american football in which players hold the ball and run with it to advance it on the field of play. In basketball, any advancement must be accompanied by the release of the ball permitting some chance that the opponent can get it. Contrast that with when a player remains in one place with the ball. Since he is not permitted to run with the ball, he is governed by the pivot foot restrictions of the traveling rule. If he wishes to move from that location while keeping the ball himself, he must dribble. If he wishes to advance it with the help of his teammates, then he must pass. There is no other method by which a team can advance the ball. It's that simple. A team can always elect to try for goal from where they currently are, but that is relinquishing possession, not advancing the ball with possession.

Therefore, if the player attempts to move the ball around on the court from one location to another, we need simply ask by what method he was attempting to do so.

1. Is he holding the ball? If yes, then he can't advance it further than permitted under the pivot foot restrictions of the traveling rule. Once those are breached, the player has traveled.

2. Has he released the ball? If he tosses it to his teammates, then he is passing. If he releases it to himself, then he must be dribbling, and that dribble must meet the definition or it is an illegal dribble.

Tossing the ball into the air and catching it is only legal per the casebook ruling if the player does not move his pivot foot, and this is precisely because the player is not attempting to advance the ball down the court.

After understanding that background, we can determine that a player tossing the ball into the air, moving to a new location based upon his pivot foot, and catching the ball without allowing it to strike the floor must be an illegal dribble because it is not a pass (definition is "to another player") and the player was not holding the ball and moving with it. Traveling prohibits "running with the ball" as in american football.

Ice Road Basketball ...
 

Good explanation. Didn't I see this on the History Channel?