Pass or illegal dribble

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

...
However, somehow I never realized starting the dribble with the pivot foot off the floor is traveling and not an illegal dribble. So that's that learned.

If you are just now learning this basic rule then that might explain why you are arguing about what Kevin Love did.

Perfectly legal play that no competent official would ever consider blowing his/her whistle on.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by APG

Well the violation would be for picking up the pivot foot before releasing the ball to start a dribble.

As to your argument with regards to throwing to or at, that's a pass to EVERYONE in the game of basketball. There's no way in hell you're going to be able to convince the majority of players, coaches, officials, that a thrown ball, that HITS HIS TEAMMATE, isn't a pass. And if it's me vs. the world....

Then the world has a lot to learn?

I'll bet you a dollar that if you got Kevin Love alone over a beer and asked him if he was trying to pass the ball he'd say of course not.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If you are just now learning this basic rule then that might explain why you are arguing about what Kevin Love did.

Perfectly legal play that no competent official would ever consider blowing his/her whistle on.

Hey! I know it's wrong, I just had it categorized under illegal dribble instead of travelling.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Then the world has a lot to learn?

I'll bet you a dollar that if you got Kevin Love alone over a beer and asked him if he was trying to pass the ball he'd say of course not.
...p

What if Kevin Love's release was instead towards his own basket, hit the rim, and then came directly back to him? Would it matter what his intent was?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What if Kevin Love's release was instead towards his own basket, hit the rim, and then came directly back to him? Would it matter what his intent was?

No and I agree that it doesn't matter here either.

[brainbrian]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What if Kevin Love's release was instead towards his own basket, hit the rim, and then came directly back to him? Would it matter what his intent was?

For the NCAA shot clock... yes.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Then the world has a lot to learn?

I'll bet you a dollar that if you got Kevin Love alone over a beer and asked him if he was trying to pass the ball he'd say of course not.

That's because he (and you, I think) would be using some definition for "pass" that isn't the rule book definition.

Instead, ask him if he was atempting a legal play to avoid a travel violation.

(He might say, "I didn't know if it would be legal, but I kew that if I didn't do something it would be illegal, so what did I have to lose".)

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's because he (and you, I think) would be using some definition for "pass" that isn't the rule book definition.

Instead, ask him if he was atempting a legal play to avoid a travel violation.

(He might say, "I didn't know if it would be legal, but I kew that if I didn't do something it would be illegal, so what did I have to lose".)

I think you're right. My point there is it wouldn't be hard to convince anyone that he wasn't trying to pass the ball in the general, non-rule sense.

My question here really was "Does 'to another player' encompass merely throwing the ball at a player or does it require the other player to have a chance to play the ball?" The clear consensus is that it just has to be in the general direction of a player without regard to his ability to play the ball.

[Adam]

Talk about overthinking. Don't get caught up with the difference between at and too. This is not a legal document.

The ball went to another player, intent beyond that is irrelevant.

[OKREF]

It's a pass. Intent doesn't matter. If you think it is a violation, than you would call a violation when the inbounder throws the ball off of an opponents back and steps in and gets the ball.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It's a pass. Intent doesn't matter. If you think it is a violation, than you would call a violation when the inbounder throws the ball off of an opponents back and steps in and gets the ball.

That's twice that's come up. I don't see the connection. The thrower-in cannot travel and has no pivot foot or ability to dribble. One could be legal and the other illegal.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That's twice that's come up. I don't see the connection. The thrower-in cannot travel and has no pivot foot or ability to dribble. One could be legal and the other illegal.

True on the inbounder. So that leaves intent, and that doesn't matter. This is a pass, I just don't see what the question is.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Believe me there can be a difference between having the ball thrown to you and at you.

A1 throws the ball towards A2 who has his back turned and is not expecting the ball.

The ball hits A2 dead in the small of the back and falls to the floor. A2 turns and picks the ball up off the floor.

How did the ball get from A1 to A2?

Not by a fumble....

Not by an interrupted dribble....

Not by a dribble....


It's a pass

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by asdf

A1 throws the ball towards A2 who has his back turned and is not expecting the ball.

The ball hits A2 dead in the small of the back and falls to the floor. A2 turns and picks the ball up off the floor.

How did the ball get from A1 to A2?

Not by a fumble....

Not by an interrupted dribble....

Not by a dribble....


It's a pass

< raises both hands in surrende r>
Ok, ok. I concede. I'll just go back to contemplating what the definition of is is.