Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
, there is no such violation described in NFHS Rule 9, nor is such a violation mentioned in the Casebook.
|
It is "mentioned" in case 4.15.4 Sit A, although the rule cited is 9-5 (illegal dribble)
Quote:
I often wonder why a signal with no such violation?
If the NFHS removed the carrying/palming signal from the book, it wouldn't be the end of the world, in all cases we could use either the travel signal, or the illegal (double) dribble signal, to communicate the specific violation.
|
Quote:
|
To call it traveling, you need to make it a special exception to the travel rule which is defined as moving the feet while holding the ball. To call it an illegal dribble requires no exception to what the rule says....it fits naturally.
|
People tend to rely too much on actual definitions. The NFHS is not perfect in their editing and often times displays signs of contradiction or inconsistency. We do not have to
solely rely on the rule book as items such as the case book, POEs, interpretations, etc. all add meaning. Example: The definition of dribble basically includes the ball striking/hitting the floor and no mention is made of an opponent's backboard or an official. But yet, case 4.15.4 Sit C tells us that throwing the ball against the opponent's backboard or an official constitutes a dribble.
I feel that the palming signal communicates more clearly what exactly happened. Traveling is
generally the act of moving a pivot foot outside the prescribed limits. We see this all the time, with few exceptions, and players are
generally moving. An illegal dribble is,
generally, the act of performing a second dribble after the first has ended. We see this frequently too and players are
generally not moving or at least trying not to move. People tend to understand the two signals (traveling/illegal dribble) when these
general acts occur. Palming is in the middle. Players,
generally, are moving, but yet a pivot foot is not what officials/people see. If you gave a traveling signal, many would say "he was dribbling!" If you gave an illegal dribble signal, many would say "he never picked up his dribble!" Now, when you give the palming signal, no one
generally, argues because they realize what you are communicating and the illegal act. It (palming signal) is a communication tool, nothing much more.
Indeed, I think it should be defined as a violation (although it seems to be defined indirectly with the aforementioned case), even though it may not technically be necessary. Maybe just add it under the definition of traveling or illegal dribble. How about (and this is not perfect but just provides an example):
Section 5 ILLEGAL DRIBBLE/PALM/CARRY
"A player shall not palm/carry the ball or a player may not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, ..."