I am certainly not a D1 official and will not speak for what one of them will actually do, but this was addressed by John Adams a few times over the years and he feels it should be called. I have never heard him make the suggestion that it matters if there is an advantage. I would agree with you if it is not obvious or we are splitting hairs, but this is usually pretty obvious to see and should be called IMO.

Peace

As Andy Dufresne says: "How can you be so obtuse?"

Can't say I've seen players catching the ball with BOTH feet on the floor, then jump and land with the ball at any level with any regularity.

Were you asking me my ruling on this question?:

One would have to be very obtuse for not knowing the obvious answer. ;)

"Trifling" is a soccer officiating term. I've never heard it in basketball.

Pivot foot up + pivot foot down = travel.

Move as described in OP = travel.

Complicating factors in games.

Player can have two feet on the floor and hop as they complete the initial catch without travelling ie. Determining when control is established.

Player can have one foot on the floor, hop onto two and shoot it without traveling. ie. Determining when control is established and if only 1 foot was on the floor making it a jump stop - but that now cannot pivot.

It is more than a soccer term. It is a social term too. ;)

Peace

I guess the basketball equivalent is "incidental".

I think they're mutually exclusive. "Trifiling" can and usually does involve the severity of contact, but hard contact can be "incidental." I've used "incidental" in soccer without any corrections (though that doesn't mean I'm right), but the only sport I've ever heard "trifling" in was soccer.

Just the same, this isn't even about contact. It's a about travelling, and hopping on two feet is cut and dry.

Traveling Is The Toughest Call ...
 

I believe that, in the play described above, said player can also legally jump off both feet to shoot the ball. N'est-ce pas?

By rule, there are no incidental violations.

I thought the very first post after the Thread Starting Post was the most concise and accurate post of this thread. :D

MTD, Sr.

Except that it is not supported BY RULE. This is only a violation due to a Case Play ruling. I believe that is the point of the OP.

Sure it is...

That establishes that when a foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot. it doesn't say ONLY one foot. So, if a player jumps from two feet, one foot has been lifted and the other is the pivot. You could say that the pivot is the last one to break contact with the floor (and it really will be one or the other if you look close enough). However, it doesn't really matter which was lifted first on a jump because the result is the same either way.

Then, Article 3 kicks in...

Camron,
By your reasoning a player could never execute a legal jump stop. That's not a practical argument for basketball. Officials deem both feet of a player to either land or leave the court simultaneously quite frequently during games.
So the point is that if a player has not yet established a pivot (either by landing or jumping with both feet simultaneously), then nothing which you have posted applies.