If rolling as part of the dive were to be disallowed, there would be no conditional preceding the prohibition on rolling over in the cited case. Instead, it would have been a blanket statement.

It is possible to do...just improbable. But they would still be sliding if they still have momentum.

If all we did was look at the wording in that play, under ordinary rules of construction rolling would not be allowed. The play has a specific list of what you can do: shoot,pass,call timeout...Under rules of construction, when there a list of things permissible, those are the only things you can do. The theory is when drafters make a list they put everything permissible on it.

When they say a player can't roll over after he stops sliding, that's all it means. Statutory construction rules don't allow us to take that sentence and add to the list. I don't think the case writers thought deeply about it though.

Personally, If momentum makes the player roll I believe it is legal. However, if a player is sliding and rolls on purpose, say to pass the ball, I will call a violation even if he is still sliding. The momentum has to cause the roll for me.

The NCAAM case play actually says rolling due to momentum is ok.

Rolling while sliding is allowed by exception.

For example, if you find a sign that says "No Parking After 5 PM," it is clear that parking is allowed before 5 PM. Otherwise the sign would simple say "No Parking."

Here we have a sign that says "No Rolling After Sliding Has Stopped." So clearly rolling while sliding is allowed or the sign would say "No Rolling."

If that's all the sign said you'd be safe to park there before 5. BUT, if it also said "parking permissible Monday, Wednesday and Friday."...and you parked there before 5, on Tuesday,...you'd get towed.

Again, if momentum causes rolling I'm good with it because of spirit of rules and NCAA interp. Not because of the wording of that play.

Again, I'd like to see what it looks like when someone is rolling and sliding at the same time.

Once the roll begins, you are no longer sliding. I have not seen anything that says rolling caused by momentum is allowed.

If you want to use cars for an example, how about this one. A car is speeding towards a cliff. The driver locks up the brakes and starts skidding. At the edge of the cliff, the car turns on its side and then rolls down the embankment. Is the car skidding down the embankment or rolling down the embankment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since it was all caused by the speeding / locking of the brakes, then it doesn't matter what you call it, it's "legal."

Player is running down court. Ball is ahead of him and to his left. He is sweaty. Dives forward left for ball. Body torqued. Momentum and sweat cause him to slide and roll same time.

You won't find anything more in NFHS but NCAAM has case play saying if momentum causes it -legal.

I will concede that in NCAA-M, there is the case play that has been cited that makes the roll legal if it's caused by the momentum from the dive.

But I'm still not convinced that in NFHS that it is. In my opinion, a roll and a slide are two different things, and once you've started to roll, you've stopped sliding.

They are two different things that can be done at the same time. Momentum is the key. Not a conscious choice to roll away from a defender while sliding. Momentum of your dive and slide makes you do it.

Again, you won't find anything else in NFHS. The thought behind allowing sliding is that you can't really control the slide. When you stop you have control of your body. No rolling. If momentum causes the slide and roll the player isn't under control at that point either. Allow it. Last thing I will say is I have the scars to prove you can slide and roll at same time. The kid who gives up his body for the team and dives for the ball gets a gold star from me. Not a travel call. Good luck to you.