The 9-step pivot

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Depends. Camron never specified what kind of stepping OOB the player was doing. If Camron meant to imply that the player had the ball and stepped OOB, it's obviously a violation and my comment is sarcasm. If Camron meant an off-ball player stepping OOB then that's obviously nothing and my comment can be taken literally.

And no I don't think OOB violations can be subject to advantage/disadvantage. Some violations like OOB are black and white, while some like traveling, carrying, etc. are much more gray and thus can be subject to A/D.

I think in context, it was obvious to me that he meant a player with the ball, given that's the only situation where "stepping out of bounds" is always a violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Depends. Camron never specified what kind of stepping OOB the player was doing. If Camron meant to imply that the player had the ball and stepped OOB, it's obviously a violation and my comment is sarcasm. If Camron meant an off-ball player stepping OOB then that's obviously nothing and my comment can be taken literally.

And no I don't think OOB violations can be subject to advantage/disadvantage. Some violations like OOB are black and white, while some like traveling, carrying, etc. are much more gray and thus can be subject to A/D.

Originally Posted by Adam

I think in context, it was obvious to me that he meant a player with the ball, given that's the only situation where "stepping out of bounds" is always a violation.

Player with the ball.

Sort of like this player, with the the ball, where the facts (holding the ball, feet moved several times, etc.) are not in dispute. There is no good reason to argue that it is OK to not call this play a travel anymore than the same player stepping OOB with the ball.

And I generally don't think that traveling is so much advantage/disadvantage call. There is nothing authoritative I've ever heard or read to suggest otherwise. Most of the cases where traveling (and even carrying) is disputed, unlike this one, have a definite advantage.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I generally don't think that traveling is so much advantage/disadvantage call. There is nothing authoritative I've ever heard or read to suggest otherwise.

Agree. But some travels are tough to call for some officials. Even here on the Forum, when different officials view the same video, we can't always agree upon a travel call.

Out of bounds is different. A player either steps on the boundary, or doesn't. If an official sees it, it's never passed on, and is always called.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. But some travels are tough to call for some officials. Even here on the Forum, when different officials view the same video, we can't always agree upon a travel call.

Out of bounds is different. A player either steps on the boundary, or doesn't. If an official sees it, it's never passed on, and is always called.

I don't think travels are difficult to see from the standpoint that we all see the same footwork and movements. What becomes problematic is ideas like gathered, released, control. There are very fine points in terms of when we feel the player has collected/controlled the ball, when we feel like then could dribble again, and when we can see the ball come out of contact with their hand. This is why I feel (that much like fouls) in an area or association you should be watching video and coming to a relative consesus on what you are going to consider things like:

- clearly released
- gather
- dribbling motion etc.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I don't think travels are difficult to see from the standpoint that we all see the same footwork and movements. What becomes problematic is ideas like gathered, released, control. There are very fine points in terms of when we feel the player has collected/controlled the ball, when we feel like then could dribble again, and when we can see the ball come out of contact with their hand. This is why I feel (that much like fouls) in an area or association you should be watching video and coming to a relative consesus on what you are going to consider things like:

- clearly released
- gather
- dribbling motion etc.

And, according to the actual dribble/travel rules, there is no such thing as "gather". When the ball comes to rest in a hand to end the dribble, it is being held. There is no mystical 3rd status between dribbling and holding unless they lose player control. It doesn't require that they squeeze it between two hands and pull it in to some magic spot. Gather may be a valid NBA term but it doesn't exist at other levels and applying it to them is not currently supported by the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And, according to the actual dribble/travel rules, there is no such thing as "gather". When the ball comes to rest in a hand to end the dribble, it is being held. There is no mystical 3rd status between dribbling and holding unless they lose player control. It doesn't require that they squeeze it between two hands and pull it in to some magic spot. Gather may be a valid NBA term but it doesn't exist at other levels and applying it to them is not currently supported by the rules.

Yep, and just fleshing this out a bit.

The point at which you would call a double dribble if the player proceeds to dribble is the point at which you should consider the ball to be "held" for purposes of pivot foot establishment.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yep, and just fleshing this out a bit.

The point at which you would call a double dribble if the player proceeds to dribble is the point at which you should consider the ball to be "held" for purposes of pivot foot establishment.

So, in the play being discussed, maybe the officials didn't think he was holding the ball . . .

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yep, and just fleshing this out a bit.

The point at which you would call a double dribble if the player proceeds to dribble is the point at which you should consider the ball to be "held" for purposes of pivot foot establishment.

That's not necessarily true. Say a player stumbles then lunges and barely touches the ball with both hands, that would end the dribble but there could be a loss of control.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yep, and just fleshing this out a bit.

The point at which you would call a double dribble if the player proceeds to dribble is the point at which you should consider the ball to be "held" for purposes of pivot foot establishment.

Or a carry....since a carry is just the ending of one dribble by allowing the ball to come to rest in a hand (holding it) and the immediate start of another dribble.

Remember that double (illegal) dribble and carry were once, not all that long ago, the same violation. They only split out carry to improve the communication of what happened. They did not a change the rules of what was or was not legal.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And, according to the actual dribble/travel rules, there is no such thing as "gather". When the ball comes to rest in a hand to end the dribble, it is being held. There is no mystical 3rd status between dribbling and holding unless they lose player control. It doesn't require that they squeeze it between two hands and pull it in to some magic spot. Gather may be a valid NBA term but it doesn't exist at other levels and applying it to them is not currently supported by the rules.

Perhaps not, but that concept is used on courts at lower levels all across the country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Perhaps not, but that concept is used on courts at lower levels all across the country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've seen plenty of officials call reaching fouls, over the back, and illegal dribbles for a high dribble, too. That doesn't make it correct.

It may not be the biggest issue on the table but don't you think the rules makers would just change the rule or make even ONE statement to that effect if that is really how they wanted it called?