Fumble or shot attempt? (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qFp0sZDOe9M?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tough play. I think it's a fumble and I would allow the player to re-gather the ball. No foul for me as the ball is still going up when contact occurs.

Ball slips out of hands before any contact. Fumble. He can recover it. Can he start a dribble?

If you would call this a try he could recover and dribble for sure.

it WOULD have been a travel IF he re-gained possession of the ball…he never did - there is no foul on the defender. The official called a travel prematurely…probably because it "looked funny" - which a lot of officials do….

A player can always recover a fumble. Even when loses control going up for shot. In this case had he come down with the ball he would have been able to start a dribble since he had not done so before. Exact play is in ncaa case book. Rules are same nfhs. My two cents:)

AR 74--ncaa

Looks like the official was signalling double dribble.

Why?

Regardless of what you call it, neither is a violation.

I got a fumble, not a shot attempt. He is losing it on the way up before any contact. And I would be inclined to call nothing in the scramble for the ball. But I can see a foul being called, I just probably would let the play continue.

Peace

Agree...nothing there.

You are correct for NCAA, but wrong for NFHS. The NFHS ruling is in the "past interps" thread on this forum.


SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4-43-3a; 9-4)

Which part are you saying is wrong and do you have any idea what year of those you are talking about? You can always recover a fumble so I'd like to see the wording of the play. Thx

Just posted it for you.

Thx. I guess what I believe is that this old play from the interps deals with situation where I fumble going up, regain control while in the air, intentionally drop it and then grab it on ground. When I am the first to touch it on the ground it is said that the act of dropping it was a start of dribble. Started dribble without pivot foot on floor. Travel. The explanation in your play says that while airborne, player has to release it on a try or pass. He has to have control for that which is why I believe when they add the term "drop" to your play they consider that regaining control. If you look at other plays in rule,4 you will see they also use term "drop" to mean an intentional act as opposed to a fumble.

Also, the travel rules for NFHS are understood to be same as ncaa. I believe when you fumble the ball you can recover it always. What you can do after you recover it depends...let me know what u think. Thx

Why do old interpretations matter? I can't point to them in the rule/case book, so why should I be explaining to a coach that according to some interp from x years ago his team running around the opponents side of the court during warmups is a technical foul?? Can someone explain why I should care/know about old interps?

I agree with your logic completely. It is really hard to tell someone you know what you are doing when you cannot prove it to anyone, unless you see it in a very special place. Not everyone is going to come to this site to know what to do. And if you started officiating well after an interpretation, then you are at a big disadvantage. I have been saying what you have been saying for years. If the interpretations still applies, it should be in the casebook still. Otherwise we are just using a certain kind of knowledge as law in these kinds of cases.

Peace

No, the play ruling is simply for a player with the ball who jumps into the air and does not either pass or try for goal, yet returns to the floor with the ball. That is traveling per NFHS rules. There is no exception for loss of player control due to a fumble in this situation as there is under NCAA rules.

This principle has been around for a long, long time under NFHS rules. I debated this very play with the late Jurassic Referee several years ago and he was proven correct when Bob Jenkins was able to provide the old interpretation to support Jurassic Referee's reading of the the NFHS traveling rule 4-44-3b.

We just have to accept that the NFHS ruling is different from that of the NCAA for this specific situation.

Agreed -- it's hard to tell whether Red moved into White's landing space or displaced White when White jumped again for the ball.

i agree. i don't think the explanation in that 2000 interp really explains anything either. the travel rule on jumping just says ball has to be released on a try or pass. case book plays tell us what can be done and not done after ball is released.

i can understand why you might want that to be the rule---player fumbled going up to pass or shoot, he made mistake. say he can't touch it first. put it in the case book. what's in the case book is the play where dribbler ends his dribble, fumbles and is allowed to go get it. language says he can always retrieve fumble. why allow that and not allow shooter or passer to retrieve his fumble…
and why put one in case book and not the other…..sorry I'm rambling...

Ambiguity reigns, but I've got "nothing".

I could not tell what violation our ref had in the video--could not see his mechanic--was it clear to anyone else on our forum?

It sure looked like the end of an illegal dribble signal to me.

The NFHS may change the rule to match the NCAA at some point in the future, but that hasn't happened yet.

The reason that there is a difference between this ruling and the dribble one in the NFHS Case Book is that the dribbling player has not yet lifted his pivot foot into the air. As you can read for yourself in 4-44, once a player picks up his pivot, the ball must be passed or shot. If not, by rule, a traveling violation has occurred.

The fumble /dribble play I am Talking about is 4.15.4. The player has dribbled. He ends the dribble and in doing so also fumbles ball several feet away. He is allowed to run and recover it. Nothing in that play about foot in air....

I think I see what u r saying

I'm saying that in that Case Book play, we should understand that the player ended his dribble and then fumbled the ball BEFORE lifting his pivot foot. Thus there is no problem with the provision of the traveling rule and he may go retrieve the ball.

Nevada,

Tell me what you do on the jump stop play. (the one where player ends dribble with one foot on floor, jumps and lands simultaneously on two feet. neither can be a pivot.) plz assume player touches ball with two hands just prior to the foot leaving the ground. fumbles while in air in process of ending dribble. ball goes 5 feet away. he goes and recovers. thx

It seems to me that the player fumbled the ball before lifting his pivot foot, so the same answer would apply.

Correct. Just apply the rules as written.

lets say he fumbled the ball just after he left the ground. he didnt have a pivot foot at the time but he also wasnt required to to shoot or pass. he could come down simultaneously on both feet.

As you state, by rule he isn't required to either pass or shoot in this instance, so I don't see the problem. If you can't identify a rule which he is violating, then his action is legal.

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.