Steps on Layup
 

I was asked by a friend just starting to learn the rules (NFHS) to ref about traveling on a layup. The question was where in the rulebook does it say the player gets to "travel for two steps" as they go up for a layup, because they could not find it. My response was it is not in the rulebook and that traveling is always traveling and as such is always a violation, there is no "legal" traveling. What appears to be the two steps is actually just a legal manipulation of the actions permitted in rule 4-44, specifically the pivot foot behavior in 4-44-3.

The 3 examples I gave are:

1) If A1 picks up his dribble with his front foot on the ground and back foot lifted, the front foot is the pivot foot. The back foot may be brought forward to become the new forward foot. The pivot foot may then be raised and may not contact the ground again without resulting in traveling. This creates the visual illusion of sorts, of two steps. At this point, A1 launches off his original non-pivot foot for the layup and all is legal.

2) If A1 picks up his dribble with both feet on the ground and the back foot is the first lifted, everything else is the same as sit. 1. If the front foot is the first lifted, everything is the same as sit. 3.

3) If A1 picks up his dribble with his back foot on the ground and front foot lifted, the back foot is the pivot foot. The front foot may come down, and the back be lifted (illusion of 1 step), but as soon as the original pivot foot comes down as the new forward foot for the second "step," it becomes a traveling violation.

Another official who was there agreed with my friend and said he was taught the player could "travel for two steps." And so, I turn to the experts to see if I learned this incorrectly. (Sorry for the wordy explanation, perhaps writing questions while writing contracts is not the brightest idea.)

Your friend needs to spend more time with you and less with this Another Official.

Haha! Thanks a lot, makes me feel better to know I'm not an idiot and actually have some clue what I'm doing.

In a lot of cases, it "looks like" 2 steps that but that has nothing to do with the rule.

A couple of points that matter in a few instances. The pivot foot doesn't exist as soon as you imply it does in your examples. The pivot foot doesn't exist until the other foot steps (not when it is in the air or is lifted).

Where this matters is in the case where a player with one foot on the ground camp jump from that foot and land on both. They never have a pivot foot at any time in that case. The first foot down can be lifted and returned to the floor legally (simultaneous with the other foot) and a dribble may still be started.

You forgot a scenario.

4) A1 picks up the dribble with neither foot on the ground. He is now allowed to take one step with both feet.

4) A1 picks up the dribble with neither foot on the ground. He is now allowed to take one step with both feet.

This never happens. Basketball players always have one foot on the ground when they pick up their dribble. No one picks up their dribble in the air. Decide which foot was the pivot foot when the player picks up his dribble and then decide if it was a travel. Basically, for a right handed layup, the player would pick up his dribble on his right foot and then jump off his left foot. If the player picks up his dribble on his left foot and then steps with his right and then jumps off his left, it is a travel. In this situation, I have seen refs signal to the coach and raise 3 fingers telling the coach his player took 3 steps. The coach was questioning the call and this was effective.

Some refs use the 'neither foot was on the ground' as an excuse for missing travel calls. Just admit you missed it and move on. Do not say that the player picked up his dribble with neither foot on the ground. We all miss travel calls. It is one of the toughest to get on layups while looking for contact and multiple players around and the potential legal jump stop.

I know others are going to vehemently disagree with this but try finding and posting video of a situation where the player picks up his dribble with neither foot on the ground.

Yeah, I disagree. Most layups are performed that way.

Typically, the ball is gathered just after the last foot leaves the floor. Next foot down is the pivot.

If you're not seeing that, they're teaching it wrong or you're not seeing it right.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

Hey, it wasn't until 1878 that it was determined that a galloping horse lifts all four feet completely off the ground. How long will it take until the layup issue in this thread is settled?

Not very long . . . 4-44-2 a. "A player who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop, and establish a pivot foot as follows:
(a.) If both feet are off the floor and the player lands: etc."

So, even the Rule Book understands that a player, running or dribbling, will at times, catch the ball with both feet off the floor.

99% of people associated with basketball can't state the rules for traveling. They can only tell it doesn't look right. Which is not good.

I played bball for years and in college and had no idea the actual rules for traveling "only that it looks like a travel "

I had to read the rules over and over for it to make sense. Who ever wrote them was very smart, at first I thought "this can't be right"

The hardest thing to grasp is : 1. catching a dribble, the dribble ends when you catch the ball (i.e. gather or control) 2) when one foot is on floor and you catch dribble the foot on the floor is not the pivot until the other foot touches in step ( does that make clear sense) 3) if you catch a dribble with one foot on floor you can jump off of that foot and land on 2 simultneously there is no pivot
Art. 3. A player who catches the ball while moving or dribbling may stop and establish a pivot foot as follows:

a. When both feet are off the playing court and the player lands:
1. Simultaneously on both feet, either may be the pivot foot;
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch shall be the pivot foot;
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both; neither foot can be the pivot foot.
b. When one foot is on the playing court:
1. That foot shall be the pivot foot when the other foot touches in a step;
2. The player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both; neither foot can then be the pivot foot.

I think this video clearly covers these concepts and I would bet "rekent" is not totally clear on this.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/29Nvnsy3Ivw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I think this video clearly covers these concepts

It does happen. It may not be frequent, but it does happen. To just say it never happens and call a travel because you don't think it can happen is just being lazy.

I've seen some pretty nifty moves that were based on such action and they were 100% legal. Maybe it didn't "look right" but it was legal.

That actually is exactly what I was thinking/call, and Art. 3 is what I base it on. I just failed to include the fact that the player may jump from the pivot foot and land on both feet simultaneously because my conversation was tailored specifically at classic layups in which the player is running through the shot rather than traveling in general.

I guess I did not articulate what was in my mind particularly well - my basketball hypothetical scenario writing probably needs some further development before I start mingling with the big dogs.

Some learn by reading, some learn by mingling. Keep mingling, I have a hunch it'll help you learn. For me, considering scenarios that stretch the boundaries of a particular rule or set of rules helps me to apply those rules during a game.

Preaching To The Choir ...
 

Amen.

I absolutely agree as well. I forget the precise situation, but last spring a very odd-ball, once in forever type case was posted on the forum, and darned if I did not see almost the exact same thing a couple weeks later during a championship game. I just had to smile as I made my call, knowing I got it right after reading the scenario here when I might have otherwise blown the call.