"Shooter Changes His Mind" Travel (Video)

[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.)

[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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

But not all "double dribbles" are "carries". Which is what I was getting at.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

But not all "double dribbles" are "carries". Which is what I was getting at.

Right. So? And there are no "double dribbles" anyway. The call is "illegal dribble". It is just a broad term for a class of infractions. Carry is just a narrow term for one of the infractions in the class of illegal dribbles.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Right. So? And there are no "double dribbles" anyway. The call is "illegal dribble". It is just a broad term for a class of infractions. Carry is just a narrow term for one of the infractions in the class of illegal dribbles.

Define a "Palming carry" (add it in Rule 9) or do away with the signal and just make one for an "illegal dribble".

Personally, I like the different signals as they help with communication, and avoid coaches always asking "what did he do" after a call. And while I doubt the lack of a definition for "Palming carry" in Rule 9 would be a problem, I don't see an issue with bringing it up and fixing it (which is not hard to do) before it comes up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All carries are "double" dribbles.

No they aren't.

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

If the ball handler carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one hand and take a few steps (moving the pivot foot) while doing so, and never starts, or ends, a second dribble (no release, no ball bouncing on the floor), before the official signals a carry (the dribbler allowed the ball to come to rest in one hand), then there is absolutely no way that this is an illegal (double) dribble, it's a travel violation (since there is actually no such thing as a real carry violation, by rule).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No they aren't.

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

If the ball handler carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one hand and take a few steps (moving the pivot foot) while doing so, and never starts, or ends, a second dribble (no release, no ball bouncing on the floor), before the official signals a carry (the dribbler allowed the ball to come to rest in one hand), then there is absolutely no way that this is an illegal (double) dribble, it's a travel violation (since there is actually no such thing as a real carry violation, by rule).

Then that is a travel, not a carry.

[potato]

The palming/carry is simply an action that made the ball come to a rest on the player's hand, it doesn't necessary means it's a violation, so you need to see how the play goes on and what the player does, if the player is palming/carrying while standing still obviously he just ended his dribble & there's no violation, if he lifted his pivot and retouch the ground with the pivot with the ball still on him then it's a travel.

[just another ref]

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