What a way to start the season!

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is a case play, not a rule. Read it for concepts. They're telling us they want players to go after a loose ball. Again, the qualification about what they can do after they stop sliding IS indirectly a statement on what then can do before they stop sliding. They're drawing a distinction between the TYPES of things allowed due to the momentum of the dive and deliberate movement that is not part of the dive.

Thx for the reply Cameron. I get the concepts, encourage hustle, we allow player to slide should also allow rolls that are due to momentum. College play spells it out clearly. I agree with it and think it's better case play interpretation rule etc.

I just disagree that this play makes it clear under NFHS and that because it says you can't roll once stop sliding you can infer player could before he stopped. For reasons stated earlier. Thx again for replying.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... indirectly a statement...

Thats the problem for me, I would prefer a direct statement.

The rule states nothing. The casebook only talks about a slide.

Camron Rust may be right, but it's not due to the citations quoted. I need more information before I will allow a player possessing a ball to roll around on the floor after chasing down a loose ball. I may even let him slide and roll simultaneously, but I can't allow him to just roll.

The casebook play tells me me to allow him to slide, but anything else is simply conjecture at this point.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thats the problem for me, I would prefer a direct statement.

The rule states nothing. The casebook only talks about a slide.

Camron Rust may be right, but it's not due to the citations quoted. I need more information before I will allow a player possessing a ball to roll around on the floor after chasing down a loose ball. I may even let him slide and roll simultaneously, but I can't allow him to just roll.

The casebook play tells me me to allow him to slide, but anything else is simply conjecture at this point.

It would be cost prohibitive to print and distribute a 4,879 page rule book and 5,192 page casebook.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I started this thread to let everybody know that what was supposed to be an easy start to the season turned into a game report for an disqualified and ejected coach. While everybody here knows how much I love to debate rules and interpretations this was supposed to be a light hearted humorous thread.

MTD, Sr.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I started this thread to let everybody know that what was supposed to be an easy start to the season turned into a game report for an disqualified and ejected coach. While everybody here knows how much I love to debate rules and interpretations this was supposed to be a light hearted humorous thread.

MTD, Sr.

Hey, you're the one that started it out by saying an 8th grader generated enough momentum to be sliding AND rolling 10-12 feet.

Like you said, he probably dove, grabbed the ball and slid on his back for 6-8 feet and passed the ball. No Travel. Good call.

Just didn't come across that way.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I started this thread.

"Don't shoot the messenger" is not the same as, "Shoot the controversial thread starter".

(Note: Excellent thread. Thanks Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It would be cost prohibitive to print and distribute a 4,879 page rule book and 5,192 page casebook.

How about one of those annual interpretations, à la Nevadaref?

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I started this thread to let everybody know that what was supposed to be an easy start to the season turned into a game report for an disqualified and ejected coach. While everybody here knows how much I love to debate rules and interpretations this was supposed to be a light hearted humorous thread.

MTD, Sr.

*ha ha MTD: just goes to show that unintended outcomes often result from the most simple of issues. Keep on posting tho, we luv it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sliding, I get. Multiple rolls? I would like this to be investigated further.

[jeremy341a]

I like the call. I feel he rolled over not due to his momentum but by choice. I have a hard time envisioning anyone rolling multiple due to their own momentum.

[Camron Rust]

Just saw a reference to an old post where the question of momentum/sliding/rolling was addressed. The question was posed to the NFHS and Mary Struckoff provided the following answer:

PLAY: A1 dives to the floor and secures control of the ball. A1's momentum causes him/her to roll over while sliding on the floor. Official rules this a traveling violation. Is the official correct? (Is rolling always a violation, or only after momentum has stopped?)

Rolling is allowed IF it were caused by momentum. Traveling cannot be called until momentum had ended. Once momentum stops, then a player that “rolls” away from a defender would be guilty of traveling.

(Reference: https://forum.officiating.com/507253-post68.html)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The question was posed to the NFHS and Mary Struckoff provided the following answer: Rolling is allowed IF it were caused by momentum.

Great citation Camron Rust. Thanks. Hopefully we can remember this the next time we have a debate/discussion/argument about rolling. It will save us a lot of time.