Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
It establishes a philosoply that there unusal and unintended actions that should still be considered as traveling even when the actions don't directly violate the exact traveling rules.
|
Where does it mention this "philosophy" extends outside this one specific case? Can I say the "philosophy" of calling a double foul in the event of a blarge also extends to the event of when one official calls a foul, and the other official calls a violation, both are penalized? Or does the "philosophy" only apply to one specific case? The philosophy extends only to the fact the committee doesn't want a player to have control of the ball while on the ground, and be able to stand up with it.
I think you're reaching a little on this one, without any specific written backing from an interp, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
No, what is does is esablish the idea that A1 is to be considerd to be holding the ball the entire time when they voluntarily release the ball in a way that is neither a dribble, pass, nor try and are the next player to touch the ball. Under that concept, the involved movement becomes a travel in both the OP and the case of the player on the floor because there were considered to be holding the ball and move their effective "pivot foot".
|
Ok, now you're
really reaching. Do you have
any rule or case backing that even comes close to saying such things? What is a "voluntary release of the ball that is not a dribble, pass or try"? How can a player be holding the ball when they're actually not? What is the definition of an "effective" pivot foot"? Besides, if A1 was still considered to be "effectively" holding the ball during this "throw", wouldn't the violation actually occur when the pivot foot is established and lifted? Why is it not called until the ball is touched the second time, even after several steps? Why is it not a violation if the ball hits the floor before A1 recovers it?
You have way too many leaps of faith and undefined terms here to come up with an actual reasoning behind the case being a travel instead of a dribble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
All fine except for the case play that says the very same action of tossing the ball into the air and catching it is legal when the player is standing still. If it really was a dribble (illegal dribble), this case would also be illegal...but it is not.
The only difference between the legal case play and the one ruled traveling is foot movement.
|
I can actually see your point here, but I still contend it cannot be a travel due to the basics - moving the feet in excess of the prescribed limits
while holding the ball. In spite of your assertion, a player can't be holding the ball, if they're not holding the ball.
You have absolutely no other rule basics that come close to that philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
In the OP, the ball wasn't batted into the air at all either. It was thrown. So, the rule doesn't really cover the case of throwing either.
|
The rule also says "...or pushes the ball to the floor", and a throw is obviously closer to a push than a bat.
I know you're trying hard to defend the NFHS and the case play change. But you're not doing a good job quite yet. Kepp trying though.
