"Shooter Changes His Mind" Travel (Video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This case play, like this thread, had nothing to do with traveling.

From the caseplay wording, how does one determine if the carry described (remember, it's not a real rule violation) is actually an illegal dribble, or a travel?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is this "carry violation" actually for an illegal dribble violation, or a travel violation? The casebook play doesn't differentiate. If it's a travel, you don't have to wait until the ball hits anything, the violation occurs right away.

I see a signal (carry/palming) in the rulebook, but I don't see a carry rule.

4-15-4b - Dribbling
"The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands."

Since there is another definition (4-44) for traveling, I would say this violation falls under "illegal dribble"

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This case play, like this thread, had nothing to do with traveling.

This thread is about traveling because if you determined A1 to have started a dribble when dropping the ball, then by definition he lifted his pivot foot prior to releasing the ball for a dribble.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This thread is about traveling because if you determined A1 to have started a dribble when dropping the ball, then by definition he lifted his pivot foot prior to releasing the ball for a dribble.

You're right, of course. I should have said traveling is only a by-product on this thread.

[potato]

It should be a double dribble more than a travel. Travel if he didn't start & ended his 1st dribble prior.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, if a ball handler picks up his dribble, expecting a teammate to cut right, makes a bounce pass to the right, but the teammate cuts left instead of right, and the pass is bounced to nobody, under those conditions you can determine if it was a pass, or a dibble?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This thread is about traveling because if you determined A1 to have started a dribble when dropping the ball, then by definition he lifted his pivot foot prior to releasing the ball for a dribble.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by potato

It should be a double dribble more than a travel. Travel if he didn't start & ended his 1st dribble prior.

You want to explain what difference it makes?

[potato]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You want to explain what difference it makes?

the outcome is the same however the ref has to signal the correct signal since traveling & double dribble has different hand sign.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Since there is another definition (4-44) for traveling, I would say this violation falls under "illegal dribble"

I was under the impression that if a stationary ball handler (no movement of feet, thus no pivot foot involved) carries the ball that it was actually an illegal (double) dribble violation, and if the ball handler carries the ball while in motion that it was probably a travel violation (called immediately, don't wait for the next dribble). Am I wrong?

Also, I have always wondered why we have a definition of carrying, and a signal, but we don't actually have a violation for carrying? Why didn't the NFHS just stick with a simple illegal (double) dribble, or a travel? In other words, could we officiate a game without a carry definition, and without a carry signal, and still interpret the act (carry) as illegal?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by potato

It should be a double dribble more than a travel. Travel if he didn't start & ended his 1st dribble prior.

Whether A1 dribbled prior to jumping and dropping the ball is irrelevant to whether or not he committed a violation in this play.

We are discussing the philosophy of when the violation occurs, immediately or after A1 retouches the ball.

[Pantherdreams]

I guess in my head I'm equating this to teams that run a lot of dribble hand offs. Imagine players constantly running at each other and then players taking off to dribble drive or bounce pass/hand off the ball. If A2 is running towards A1 and A1 releases the ball at the ground after lifting his back foot, I need to wait until either he touches it again or to see if A2 collects the dropped ball before I can determine if A1 traveled. If he's dribbling yes, if he's passing no.

So if a player jumps up and releases the ball I need to see what the next action is to consider whether or not its a dribble/pass/fumble/etc.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was under the impression that if a stationary ball handler (no movement of feet, thus no pivot foot involved) carries the ball that it was actually an illegal (double) dribble violation, and if the ball handler carries the ball while in motion that it was probably a travel violation (called immediately, don't wait for the next dribble). Am I wrong?

Also, I have always wondered why we have a definition of carrying, and a signal, but we don't actually have a violation for carrying? Why didn't the NFHS just stick with a simple illegal (double) dribble, or a travel? In other words, could we officiate a game without a carry definition, and without a carry signal, and still interpret the act (carry) as illegal?

I think the problem is having a "double dribble" and "carry" signal. Just one "illegal dribble" signal should suffice. I mean, a "double dribble" is not the same as a "carry", so having different signals makes sense. If you want to put them together under "illegal dribble", then I'd say there should be a different signal.

Or... you know... put the definition of "carry", along with including it under "violations", in the rule book.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I think the problem is having a "double dribble" and "carry" signal. Just one "illegal dribble" signal should suffice. I mean, a "double dribble" is not the same as a "carry", so having different signals makes sense. If you want to put them together under "illegal dribble", then I'd say there should be a different signal.

Or... you know... put the definition of "carry", along with including it under "violations", in the rule book.

Or is it . . . the violation is that the carry terminated the dribble, and he then dribbled it a second time, right? Seems to me that while the "carry" signal may be technically unnecessary, it conveys useful information about the nature of the violation. (Of course, one could argue that all of the signals as to what the violation was aren't truly necessary as long as the referee signals that a violation occurred . . . they are just helpful to communicate.)

[just another ref]

As I recall, the carrying signal was eliminated, then put back, in the late 80's or early 90's.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Or is it . . . the violation is that the carry terminated the dribble, and he then dribbled it a second time, right? Seems to me that while the "carry" signal may be technically unnecessary, it conveys useful information about the nature of the violation. (Of course, one could argue that all of the signals as to what the violation was aren't truly necessary as long as the referee signals that a violation occurred . . . they are just helpful to communicate.)

The problem comes when somebody, say a coach, wants a definition of a "carry" after you call it against his team. You don't have one, which leads you to get into the definition of ending a dribble, thus leading to the question of "why isn't it a double dribble violation, instead?"

That's not a likely scenario, and it's being nit-picky, but shouldn't a rule book be that technical? If you have a signal for a "carry", then why wouldn't you define a "carry"? Or why not just call it a "double dribble" or an "illegal dribble" (needing a new signal for that)?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I mean, a "double dribble" is not the same as a "carry", so having different signals makes sense. If you want to put them together under "illegal dribble", then I'd say there should be a different signal.

Actually, it is. All carries are "double" dribbles. Some might be travels too. In fact, the actual rule is "illegal dribble", so it is covered under that just fine.

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Or is it . . . the violation is that the carry terminated the dribble, and he then dribbled it a second time, right? Seems to me that while the "carry" signal may be technically unnecessary, it conveys useful information about the nature of the violation.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by just another ref

As I recall, the carrying signal was eliminated, then put back, in the late 80's or early 90's.

Yes. It was added back, not to make something new illegal, but for communication purposes.