This is a situation that was described to me by a brother official.

A1, who has not yet dribbled, is holding the ball while closely guarded by B1. Under the pressure of B1's defense, A1 pivoting loses balance, and takes several steps. Before lifting the pivot foot, A1 also loses control of the ball (bobbles it). Did A1 travel and why?

Let me make a fool of myself first.

If it is a travel, and I think it is, it is because 'bobbling the ball', once A1 has gained control, is not defined - thus A1 is still in control. Interrupted dribble, that is defined. Bobbling the ball on the catch, that is understood, though I'm not sure where - in the Casebook I would think - it is codified. But just bobbling the ball without their being a foul, without the ball being tapped away, this is not an inference that an Official can properly make. You juggle the ball after you have gotten it in control and you take steps, you traveled.

Yah?

Ever hear of the term "fumble"?

Nah.

NF 4-21
A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player' s grasp.

NF 4-43
Traveling (running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball.

So, it's an inference that can be properly made?
 

Purely a judgment call? A player can bail out of stumbling in this circumstance by 'fumbling' the ball?

Re: So, it's an inference that can be properly made?
 

Fumbling is "accidently" losing control. It's up to the official to determine whether it was accidental or <em>controlled</em>.

Re: So, it's an inference that can be properly made?
 

Stumbling is not fumbling. If the he stumbles, lifts the pivot foot and puts it back down, it's traveling if he's HOLDING the ball. If he's already lost control of the ball, it's nothing.

And, no, it's not a difficult call to make.

Re: Re: So, it's an inference that can be properly made?
 

Camron,
I agree. I have no problem 'inferring'.

How's your wheel?
mick

Well, take it one step, hehe, further . . .
 

What really happened, I am told, is that the guy did this while unguarded. The idea that one can fumble the ball unprompted is hard to swallow. Have you ever actually seen this happen?

This isn't the exact same situation, but it is similar.

Tournament we were in three weeks ago. We make a pass upcourt, ball is caught by pinning ball to shoulder/neck with one hand (apparent player control), then whatever control was there is lost and ball is bobbled, couple of steps taken while bobbling ball, then control regained, no more steps taken. Ball never hit floor, so we can't call this a dribble. There were not two steps taken while ball was pinned. Ball is clearly not under control while steps were being taken. Ref called travel, I pleaded no control. Ref agreed that there was no control while the steps were taken, but said control was established first, then lost, so travel was the right call. Thoughts?

I agree with you, Coach.
That official made one up cuz it seemed like the thing to do when he did it, but we know that ugly isn't always illegal. Otherwise, they wouldn't let me ref.

Maybe he punched up the wrong "instant response" button - he probably meant to say "no coach, he had control" but got "hey coach, he never had control" instead. Then he had to say something stupid to cover himself. ;)

Anyway, it sounds like a case of it looked too ugly to let pass without a whistle. :)

YIKES...if you're gonna botch a call, you can at least find a better way to bull**** the coach than contradicting the rules twice in one sentence!

First, I don't think he was BSing me, because this pair of officials was one of the better I have had this year (PA refs - they've been great every time I have been there!). They were willing to pass on the bobbling travels and the fumble double dribbles that other refs think they need to call. So this one call stood out among other (no) calls they made. We had the same crew for three games in two days, so you know what they are calling and not calling. And I think that this is how he views the rule.

And his response is better than what usually happens, like when I have a player fumble on the pick-up of a dribble and they get called for DD. You ask about a fumble and all you get is the blank stare, as though they really don't know there is a rule on that.

Hawks Coach - in essence, it is the same situation
 

and, as I think this thread's responses have shown, it is difficult and important. One of the most common errors I see is when a player is called for a travel, say, when falling down trying to control the ball. It all depends on when control is gained.

In a local D2 college game a few years back, a long pass ended up on the catcher's shoulder, and the player managed to balance the ball there while taking a few steps till he had reached up and back to gain control. The ruling was he didn't have control. 'Balancing' the ball on your shoulder is not control . . . although, what would you do if some clown headed the ball in little bumps, soccer-style? Is THAT control?

This is a coach saying this???
 

Once again I am simply stunned by your rules knowledge. Be careful, they won't let you coach anymore if you can't fail the rules test!

fumble
 

A good rule of thumb taught in a couple of camps I have been to:

It is OK to fumble-dribble-fumble.
It is not OK to dribble-fumble-dribble.

Re: This is a coach saying this???
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nevadaref

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach Once again I am simply stunned by your rules knowledge. Be careful, they won't let you coach anymore if you can't fail the rules test!

Thanks, but don't be stunned. Just credit the experienced people on this board with having provided me a free rules clinic for the last few years. I wasn't here knowledge wise three years ago. By staying around this group, I continue to get a lot of knowledge of the nuances of these rules and how different people cna read them.

I also think there are lots of coaches that have pretty solid rules knowledge, and you probably don't hear as much from them. The louder they are, the less they know in my experience. And we all get some things wrong - just look at the number of refs, coaches and fans that come on looking for guidance, and turn out to have mis-understood a rule.

I owned (and opened) NFHS rule books for several years before coming on the board, but have learned much more since getting into the discussions. The rules are easier to understand once you know how to read them.

Coach, you're more knowledgable than you give yourself credit for. At a recent girls state tournament game, I had this exact thing happen. Two-person mechanics and I was trail. The girl went to end her dribble around the top of the key and fumbled the ball so I called nothing. Unfortunately my partner (yes, even at the state tournament some officials fish in your pond at times) decided to call a double dribble from the baseline as lead. It was a blowout game so I decided to just go with the flow and head the other way. On my evaluations, three of my four evaluators had a clue and wrote down, "your partner shouldn't have made that call." Unfortunately, one of the evaluators wrote down, "you missed an obvious double-dribble right in front of you and your parnter had to call it." This evaluator had been a ref for 30 years. Yikes.

Z

Could you please clarify whether these three evaluators wrote this because they believed that this wasn't a double dribble and shouldn't have been called at all or because they knew the play was not in your partner's area and that is why he shouldn't have made that call?
The crux of the situation was that this was not a double dribble. So the reasoning behind what these evaluators wrote is more important than what they wrote.
The comment you passed along seems ambiguous to me.

Nevadaref,

The other three evaluators indicated that it wasn't a double dribble <b> and </b> that my partner should not have been looking in my area.

Z

FANTASTIC!