Travelling/sitting

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Palming/carrying ... I guess you could also say it's a double dribble, since the carrying action is nothing unless they push the ball to the floor again, hence the dribble ended on the palming, then another dribble.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

All we've got is a signal, and an oral history of the violation communicated by old grizzled veteran officials sitting around a campfire, eating beans and farting.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

The case play (throwing over an opponent) is ruled traveling. It even notes "...since the ball did not touch the floor.."The case play contradicts what you indicated. I could be convinced otherwise, but for now, I am sticking with controlling.

Either way, no one would bat an eye about calling a violation.

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.

[bucky]

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)

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.

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, ..."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That being said, I use the carrying/palming signal all the time. Like Supreme Court Justice Stewart, "I know it when I see it". And apparently so do players, coaches, and fans. I never get a question like, "Was that a travel carrying/palming violation, or was that an illegal (double) dribble carrying/palming violation?".

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

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

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

[RefBob]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Find anywhere in the NFHS rules book, including the penalty sections, where it states to award the first free throw for 1&1 situations.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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"

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is this the only time that a player will travel and will not be holding the ball?

From the Misunderstand Rules List: A player must be holding the ball (with one very rare exception) in order to travel.

Just checking. I'm about to post an updated List.

Possible video example of the rare travel exception.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Possible video example of the rare travel exception.

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

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)

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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]."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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 ...

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?

[ilyazhito]

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.