Travelling/sitting

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

I would change the word "holding" to "controlling." Consider walking down the floor while continuously controlling the ball by tipping/tapping it in the air over and over. This controlled tipping/tapping would be traveling imo but yet the ball is not being held. i prefer the word controlled. Just my 2 cents.

Incorrect. Holding is the correct word. What you described is an illegal dribble.

Rule 4-15 DRIBBLE:

ART. 2 . . . During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s).

Since it isn't allowed to hit the floor, that makes it an illegal dribble.

If "controlling" were what made it a travel, a normal dribble would then be a travel.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Incorrect. Holding is the correct word. What you described is an illegal dribble.

Rule 4-15 DRIBBLE:


Since it isn't allowed to hit the floor, that makes it an illegal dribble.

If "controlling" were what made it a travel, a normal dribble would then be a travel.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

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

I'm intellectually intrigued by carrying/palming violations. There's an official NFHS signal for carrying/palming listed under violation signals, yet there is no definition of a carrying/palming violation in NFHS Rule 4, there is no such violation described in NFHS Rule 9, nor is such a violation mentioned in the Casebook.

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.

My personal description of carrying/palming is when the ball comes to rest in a player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or illegally dribbles a second time, but I'm not a NFHS Rules Editor, nor do I play one on television.

Even absent a definition or description, as United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in 1964, "I know it when I see it" (a expression by which one attempts to categorize an observable event, although the category lacks clearly defined parameters), so I do use the signal.

I guess that we could technically do without a carrying/palming signal, instead using the travel signal, or the illegal dribble signal, where appropriate.

I often wonder why a signal with no such violation?

[DrPete]

Palming/carrying does show up in Rule 4.15.4.b
ART. 4

The dribble ends when:

b. The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.

There may not be a clear definition of it, but the description is almost self explanatory. And the mechanic signal depicts exactly what happened. 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Rule 4.15.4.b: The dribble ends when: The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.

Good point, but this doesn't define a violation, rather it defines one of several ways that a dribble ends.

Ball handlers allow the ball to come to rest in one or both hands (carrying/palming) dozens of times in a game without violating.

If said player ends his dribble by allowing the ball to come to rest in one or both hands (carrying/palming) and then moves his pivot foot in excess of legal limits, then that's a travel violation.

If said player ends his dribble by allowing the ball to come to rest in one or both hands (carrying/palming) and then dribbles again, then that's an illegal (double) dribble violation.

I still contend that there is no definition, description, or interpretation of a carrying/palming violation that is not already either a travel violation, or an illegal (double) dribble 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.

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?".

I just find it odd that it's a violation signal without an actual defined violation.

[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.

[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.

[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.