Winter (Actually Autumn) Wonderland ...
 

Yes you could say that, but why guess, it (in your post) is an illegal (double) dribble.

Or palming/carrying may be called as a result of a travel violation.

Whenever we call it, it's either one, or the other, carrying/palming is not a third type of violation in addition to traveling, and illegal (double) dribbling.

And it's not a big deal, just something to ponder on a beautiful snowy New England morning.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.y...=0&w=300&h=300

Blazing Saddles (1974) ...
 

That's Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. in the right foreground, in the maroon shirt, with his back to us.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.a...=0&w=323&h=170

It does. But it hasn't always. Go back a few years and that very same case play is called illegal dribble. It was changed to traveling without an explanation. Several here were puzzled by the change. However, since the result is unchanged no matter what we call it, it really isn't an issue what we call it.

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.

It is "mentioned" in case 4.15.4 Sit A, although the rule cited is 9-5 (illegal dribble)

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, ..."

Communication Tool ...
 

Nice explanation, you've given this a lot of thought.

Just another tool in our (black) referee tool belt.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.w...=0&w=287&h=176

Great discussion. As a relative new guy, I’ve always thought the same as BillyMac about the palming violation - you can’t have it without it also being a travel or illegal dribble violation. Good to see an expert agree. Because of this, I’ve never called a palming violation - I always call an illegal dribble. However, good point about calling the palming violation because it matches what everyone in the gym saw. I’ll need to work on that.

BillyMac,
Here is another one for you.
Find anywhere in the NFHS rules book, including the penalty sections, where it states to award the first free throw for 1&1 situations. Not the rule instructing the officials to award 2nd FT if the first attempt is successful, but the rule stating that team fouls 7,8,&9 merit at least one FT.

Who Wants S'mores ???
 

We've already discussed this, and it's not there.

Yet another situation that requires a bunch of old grizzled veterans sitting around a campfire, passing on the oral history of the "first of a one and one" to the young'uns of the next generation.

When I tell it I like to hold a flashlight under my chin and make the story as scary as possible, "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ...".

I always make out Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. to be the bad guy. The young'uns love it because he's both old and scary.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.s...=0&w=212&h=165

Or, on that same line, where is it that the FTs for the 10th foul are called the "double bonus"?

The "bonus" is the 2nd shot awarded for making the first (1 plus a bonus). If it were a double bonus, wouldn't that imply 2 more shots if they make the first? ;)

Yep, the proper term is something like "automatic bonus"

Possible video example of the rare travel exception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8a...LtcFkXyW5DaR7E

A Little Traveling Music Sammy (Jackie Gleason, 1964) ...
 

Excellent video. Thanks sdoebler.

4.44.5 SITUATION B: A1 dives for a loose ball and slides after gaining control.
A1 is in a position either on his/her back or stomach. What can A1 do without
violating? RULING: A1 may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a time-out. Once
A1 has the ball and is no longer sliding, he/she may not roll over. If flat on his/her
back, A1 may sit up without violating. Any attempt to get to the feet is traveling
unless A1 is dribbling. It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises
and is first to touch the ball. (4-44-5b)

This definition of the bonus is a relic from the time when ALL fouls, including common fouls, resulted in at least 1 free throw being awarded (shooting fouls would award the value of the attempted shot, unless the shooter scores). As a result, all fouls would result in one free throw, so the bonus is the chance for an extra free throw as a reward for making the original free throw.

Because free throws are no longer awarded for common fouls, the definition of the bonus in the rulebook now makes no sense. Thus, I believe it should change to "the set of one or more free throws awarded for a common foul after the fouling team has reached the foul limit for (a) one guaranteed free throw, with another to follow should the first be made [7 fouls] or (b) two guaranteed free throws [10 fouls]."

Just Who Are You Calling A Relic ???
 

It's kind of fuzzy (don't blame the weed), but I think that this is what we did back in high school.

Now, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., there's a great example of "a relic from the (ancient) time".

Note: ilyazhito, you seem way too young to know this. Did you find the rules written on worn-out sacred scrolls in earthenware vessels buried within caves near the Dead Sea?

No, but I did some Forum archaeology and logical inferences from the way the bonus rules are written to come up with the existence of an (unstated) 1st free throw.