UNC/Duke (Video)

[johnny d]

Moving backwards and leaning backwards are two different things. When I was learning how to officiate and become an HS official I went to a camp run by a D1 official. In that camp the expectation was that leaning back should be a blocking foul while a defender can move backwards without penalty. As I have moved up to college basketball, that has seemed to be the expectation at every level I have made it to. I continue to officiate these plays using that philosophy and will continue to do so in all the college and HS games I work. At the end of the day, whether or not that philosophy is correct by rule or not is irrelevant. As long as the idea is to continue to get games or move up the ladder, it is much more important for an official to follow the accepted practices rather than be a martyr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Moving backwards and leaning backwards are two different things. When I was learning how to officiate and become an HS official I went to a camp run by a D1 official. In that camp the expectation was that leaning back should be a blocking foul while a defender can move backwards without penalty. As I have moved up to college basketball, that has seemed to be the expectation at every level I have made it to. I continue to officiate these plays using that philosophy and will continue to do so in all the college and HS games I work. At the end of the day, whether or not that philosophy is correct by rule or not is irrelevant. As long as the idea is to continue to get games or move up the ladder, it is much more important for an official to follow the accepted practices rather than be a martyr.

I prefer to do both...and I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the problem.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Moving backwards and leaning backwards are two different things.

True, and neither is illegal.

At the end of the day, whether or not that philosophy is correct by rule or not is irrelevant. As long as the idea is to continue to get games or move up the ladder, it is much more important for an official to follow the accepted practices rather than be a martyr.

This is the part I've been waiting to see flatly stated.
This is what your bosses say to do, so this is what you do and that's not your fault. I'll buy that. But the fact that these guys in charge order things contrary to the rules is a crock, if you ask me, which nobody ever does.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True, and neither is illegal.

This is the part I've been waiting to see flatly stated.
This is what your bosses say to do, so this is what you do and that's not your fault. I'll buy that. But the fact that these guys in charge order things contrary to the rules is a crock, if you ask me, which nobody ever does.

I think you would find it difficult to get any of the guys in charge or that teach this philosophy to agree that it is illegal. I have never asked for any particular person's reasoning regarding this issue, but I think they would make an argument that has already been raised in this thread. Leaning backwards is neither moving laterally, obliquely, or backwards. Nor is it strictly turning or ducking to absorb shock of imminent contact. An argument can be made, that it also violates the principle of verticality. I can see both sides of this argument, and frankly because I like to keep my boss happy by doing what they expect, I really do not see much benefit into analyzing it in that great of detail to see whether or not I agree with this theoretical argument.

[Raymond]

To succeed as a college official, you need to know the rules and the manual AND how that particular game's supervisor wants the rules interpreted and mechanics executed. That's just a fact of life at the collegiate level.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

To succeed as a college official, you need to know the rules and the manual AND how that particular game's supervisor wants the rules interpreted and mechanics executed. That's just a fact of life at the collegiate level.

Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean it should be.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean it should be.

I'm not sacrificing my career for that battle, especially since that aspect of college officiating doesn't bother me. And it doesn't bother most college officials.

My question: who determines whether or not it is right?

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You can jump with both feet. You can lift one foot and then jump off the other (which is what you, I think, described earlier as being illegal -- it isn't).

What you can't do (under this type of jump stop) is lift either foot and return it to the floor.

That's why I asked about any difference in interp on this between NCAA and NFHS. Originally, as I said, I thought it to be a legal move: come to a legal jump stop as he did, turn face basket, then pivot on left foot after lifting right foot, and jump from that pivot foot towards the basket for a shot. I still think that is legal, but I'm second guessing myself I suppose when I read from NF 11-12 CB 4.44.2A that says after coming to a jump stop "it is a violation if A1 pivots on either foot".
Clarifications anyone?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

That's why I asked about any difference in interp on this between NCAA and NFHS. Originally, as I said, I thought it to be a legal move: come to a legal jump stop as he did, turn face basket, then pivot on left foot after lifting right foot, and jump from that pivot foot towards the basket for a shot. I still think that is legal, but I'm second guessing myself I suppose when I read from NF 11-12 CB 4.44.2A that says after coming to a jump stop "it is a violation if A1 pivots on either foot".
Clarifications anyone?

NCAA Rule

Rule 4 Section 22. Jump Stop
Art. 1. A jump stop is executed when a player catches the ball while moving or dribbling with:

a. One foot on the playing court, jumps off that foot and lands simultaneously on both feet (no pivot foot).
b. Two feet off the playing court, lands on one foot, jumps off that foot and lands simultaneously on both feet (no pivot foot).

Art. 2. A jump stop may also be executed when the dribbler has one foot on the playing court, initiates a jump off that foot, ends the dribble with both feet off the playing court and lands simultaneously on both feet (either foot can be established as the pivot foot).


If your dribbles ends while airborne, and you land on 2 feet, you get a pivot foot. If you are in possession of the ball (gathered), and you jump off one foot, you get no pivot foot once you land.

[Remington]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If your dribbles ends while airborne, and you land on 2 feet, you get a pivot foot. If you are in possession of the ball (gathered), and you jump off one foot, you get no pivot foot once you land.

This is the hardest part to interpret in my opinion. When does the dribble end (gather) actually happen. If you think of it in a carrying/palming capacity, many times the ball handler doesn't bring his hand all the way under the ball until both feet are off the ground on the "jump stop." In my neck of the woods, the collegiate players can do this legally more often the the majority of the HS players probably because they may be less athletic, less practice, smaller hands, etc....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by letemplay

That's why I asked about any difference in interp on this between NCAA and NFHS. Originally, as I said, I thought it to be a legal move: come to a legal jump stop as he did, turn face basket, then pivot on left foot after lifting right foot, and jump from that pivot foot towards the basket for a shot. I still think that is legal, but I'm second guessing myself I suppose when I read from NF 11-12 CB 4.44.2A that says after coming to a jump stop "it is a violation if A1 pivots on either foot".
Clarifications anyone?

I think the case could be worded better and/or you are mis-understanding the word "pivot."

Better for the case would be "it is a violation if A1 steps with either foot."

Travelling is "moving the pivot foot in excess of allowed limits" (or something like that. So, when we say "neither foot can be a pivot", it does not mean that neither foot can be lifted, nor does it mean that neither foot can be turned; it means that neither foot can be lifted and returned to the floor.

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think the case could be worded better and/or you are mis-understanding the word "pivot."

Better for the case would be "it is a violation if A1 steps with either foot."

Travelling is "moving the pivot foot in excess of allowed limits" (or something like that. So, when we say "neither foot can be a pivot", it does not mean that neither foot can be lifted, nor does it mean that neither foot can be turned; it means that neither foot can be lifted and returned to the floor.

Well, yes..I def misunderstand THAT definition of the word "pivot". Guess I'll just stick with: if it looks like a duck...

[Rob1968]

4-33 PIVOT
"A pivot takes place when a player who is holding the ball steps once, or more than once, in any direction with the same foot while the other foot, called the pivot foot, is kept at its point of contact with the floor."

It's not uncommon for a person to misconstrue the use of the word "pivot" in the basketball use/sense. The application of the word to basketball is a definite departure from it's common use. In a recent conversation with several newer officials, I asked one to demonstrate what it meant to "pivot" and he extended one foot, placed it on the floor and twisted it.

Now, it is common, while pivoting, for the player to twist the pivot foot, to accomodate the movement of the other foot. But, as noted in 4-33, that twisting is not the substance of the use of the word, in basketball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I thought so at first, but last camera angle shows it was clean.

It was that very same camera angle that confirmed it was a foul for me....the backside of the defenders triceps comes down on the arm of the shooter.

[Pantherdreams]

[QUOTE=johnny d;955501]Moving backwards and leaning backwards are two different things. QUOTE]

I don't think they are in this context.

If the player had established LGP but leaned forward outside their LGP to initate contact with a shooter we would argue he moved into the shooter.

If they player in LGP wishes to lean backward to protect themselves or to move away from the contact they should get the same application of "move".

It doesn't make sense to say" You can't move into the shooter, so no leaning forward because you are moving into them but also say, you can move backwards but no leaning away from them because leaning is not moving.