Based on this interpretation, the player should not be allowed to request a timeout to avoid the requirements.

I point this out because you mentioned that we needed to assume the dribble case play player has a pivot foot and doesnt have to shoot or pass. also, you cited the player who lifts his pivot foot and said he must shoot or pass. implying if he fumbles then he wouldnt be allowed to go get it. however, that player,on one leg, can simply stand there holding ball on one leg. he doesnt have to shoot or pass like some airborne players.

anyway, ive seen case interps come out completely wrong. i just wonder how much the 2000 play you cited was looked at scrutinized etc. has it been over the years and reaffirmed by nfhs? why has it not made it into the book?

Happy Thanksgving to all.

It is the National Federation. Of course it was not scrutinized. It was thrown out there and someone like always did not think of the other possibilities.

Peace

Team Control Throwin Backcourt ???
 

Amen.

No foul, no travel. It's a fumble. I'm thinking I would allow him to recover the fumble.

There are different articles of 4-44 which cover the specific circumstances. Don't confuse them. The basic principle is that the player who has lifted his pivot foot must pass or try for goal prior to the pivot returning to the floor.

So your example of the player lifting one foot and then standing on the other foot is perfectly in line with these requirements. We simply wait and see what happens.