Travelling/sitting
 

I've lurked on here long enough I should know the answer, but . . .

NFHS. Player gains possession of ball while laying down. Sits to throw ball. Travel?

I know it's a travel if he stands, but I thought sitting was OK, at least unless he used the sitting to move somewhere?

Check your casebook. 4.44.5 Situation B

Sit Up, Pass, Shoot, Start A Dribble, Request Timeout …
 

A few interesting interpretations below:

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)

4.44.5 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling when he/she: (a) drops to a position with
a knee on the floor and then ends the dribble; or (b) drops one knee to the floor
and then stands again while continuing the dribble. RULING: The action in both
(a) and (b) is legal. However, if A1 touches a knee to the floor while holding the
ball, it would be traveling as A1 has touched the floor with something other than
a hand or foot.

4.44.5 SITUATION D: A1 secures possession of the ball with one knee in contact
with the floor. May A1 assume a standing position without committing a traveling
violation? RULING: It depends on what A1 does. If A1 attempts to stand up
while holding the ball, a traveling violation occurs. However, if A1 starts a dribble
and then rises, no violation has occurred. Also, A1 could pass, try for goal or call
a time-out from that position.

I would love to--but don't have one. I'm not a basketball ref--I would hope I would know this rule backwards and forwards if I was!

EDIT: thanks Billymac!

EDIT 2: I'm guessing that, in the opinion of the referee (yeah, I know that is soccer lingo, but I'm a soccer ref...), he had possession before he was on his back, so called him for rolling over rather than sitting up. From the comfort of the stands, I didn't think he had possession till he was on the back, and thought the call was for sitting up, which I thought was wrong. Of course, my opinion from the stands doesn't matter. . . I just like understanding the rules as much as I can.

Updated Misunderstand Rules List Will Be Posted Soon ...
 

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.

This has been discussed. Holding or touching? I believe, can't recall what consensus was, there is the possibility with shooter losing control and then touching. Also, NFHS case 4.44.2 Sit C. Player throws ball over defender and catches it. Instead of catching (ruled a travel in case book), wouldn't it also be a travel just for touching the ball? If so, that would be an example of someone not holding it. ??

Touching ...
 

Just touching instead of catching (holding)? Sounds like a travel and is yet another example of someone traveling without not holding the ball.

I will change my List to read: A player must be holding the ball (with rare exceptions) in order to travel.

Thanks.

That case has been discussed before. At one time, the case play declared it an illegal dribble. By rule, that is more correct than calling it a travel since traveling does indeed required the ball to be held while moving the feet (still with one exception). There is no exception needed to call it an illegal dribble (for not letting it hit the floor).

One Exception ...
 

Thanks.

I will change my List to read: A player must be holding the ball (with rare exception) in order to travel (changing "exception" from plural to singular).

Note: It's nice to know that a few Forum members actually read my very numerous posts. I will admit that sometimes I post things that are self serving, the posts help me understand things, or remind me of things. As a retired teacher, I know that scientific studies substantiate that the physical act of writing (and possibly typing, or keyboarding) boosts learning. That's why I always had my students take notes in class every day, even if the material was in the textbook. This method may not have helped all of them to learn (there are so many different learning styles) but it definitely helped many of them to learn and to achieve success in my classroom.

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:
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.

Carrying/Palming ???
 

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?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M...=0&w=203&h=175

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.

No Such Animal ...
 

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.

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.

Except that video does not, IMO, reflect what is being talked about in the ruling.

I don't see that player putting the ball on the floor and getting up. The ball is already on the floor, the player touches it to stop it from rolling, then gets up. At no time was that player holding the ball...no player control established, which is what would be necessary to have a travel.

I like to think of bonus meaning opportunity.

In the case of a single bonus, a player has an opportunity (note singular) to make 2 shots.

In the case of a double bonus, a player has opportunities (note plural) to make 2 shots.

In the latter, the player has double the opportunities or double bonus.

Maybe we should eliminate use of single/double and just use bonus/bonuses:p

That isn't what it means, however.

The penalty is one shot plus a bonus shot if they make the first.

The latter really isn't an automatic bonus or a double bonus, it is just 2 shots. There is no bonus to it. The whole thing is the natural penalty and they get it no matter what. However, automatic is far closer than double if we're going to use the term bonus.

Still A Great Video ...
 

Agree. Can the touch to prevent the roll be considered a "controlled" touch?

Nice video but I do not think it fits the case as far as your red-letter words. To me, the video shows control is gained with the knee touching the floor and then the player rising, which is the traveling part.

Back to your myth list and "holding" a ball for traveling. To "hold" usually means grasping, as in using one hand. As far as a basketball, holding generally means with two hands or one hand and at least another body part. (for example one hand on the ball depressing it against a player's waist = player is holding the ball). Do you consider someone palming (and not in the dribbling sense but rather controlling the ball with one hand moving it in any direction) the ball to be "holding" it? I do not consider palming to be holding in the basketball sense which is another reason why I prefer the word "controlling" when discussing traveling. Palming is like a very specific method of holding. Not sure how I feel about describing a supinated hand with the ball on it. Thinking holding but if hand on the bottom is holding, why shouldn't on the top (palming) be holding? And if we have a specific term for describing the palm on top (palming) then why no specific word for the palm being on the bottom? (suppose could say supinating but no one does, everyone says holding) More for me with which to wrestle. Not debating anything, just throwing out my two cents. No one in the world will question your description of traveling in your myth list.;)

Think you are answering your own question. Would not the words "touch to prevent" = control?

Ain't Math Great ???
 

It's just for a fraction of a second (I had to pause the video), but you're right. Holding (control) plus knee on floor equals a travel.

A player holding the ball: May not touch the floor with a knee or any other part of the body other than hand or foot.

Is knee = traveling, because there is no pivot foot?

Because I Said So ...
 

It's because the rule says it is: A player holding the ball: May not touch the floor with a knee or any other part of the body other than hand or foot.

Then why is kneeling legal under NCAA rules, with the proviso that the pivot foot not be moved?

Apples And Oranges ...
 

My best guess would be because high school games use NFHS rules and college games use NCAA rules, but that's just a guess on my part.

Because the rules makers decided it should be different. I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

What is the logic behind the differences in the NFHS and NCAA rule set when it comes to kneeling? Is it because NCAA believes that one can kneel without moving the pivot foot, but NFHS does not believe that?

Options:

1) NFHS was ahead of the game on the "national anthem protest" thing so restricted kneeling

2) 99% of the time the pivot foot moves, so just make it easier on the officials

3) It was an inadvertent change (or no change) to one of the books, and now the committee feels the need to justify it

4) True

5) All of the above except 6

6) No one knows and no one should care. This isn't one of those rules where you need to know the "spirit and intent" to enforce correctly.

7) It improves the game's entertainment value in NCAA

8) Many of the NCAA refs also work D-League or WNBA, and that's the D-League and WNBA rule and the officials can't be expected to remember the differences

9) There is no 9

10) You're the first person to notice and by writing the rules committees you can get the rule sync'd next season

In Perfect Harmony (Coca-Cola, 1971) ...
 

Let's just get rid of the "alphabet soup" and just have Esperanto Basketball Rules.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.l...=0&w=300&h=300

No.

Control != Player Control.

A tap for a goal is controlled but it isn't player control.

Control, for the purposes of the traveling rule required holding the ball...no hold, no travel. Briefly pinning the ball between a hand and the floor isn't holding to me.

Generic Control ...
 

Agree, but let's be careful to not confuse the young'uns.

A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling
a live ball.

A tap for goal is the contacting of the ball with any part of a player’s
hand(s) in an attempt to direct the ball into his/her basket.

The definitions in the NFHS Rulebook may not be the same as the definitions in Funk and Wagnalls.

Agree...that is precisely my point.

The player never held the ball while on the floor....it was more of a hand-check! ;)

He did potentially travel when he stood up and grabbed the ball...he may have grabbed it before his knee lifted but that is really close and I'd lean towards no travel on that one too.

Also consider case 4.44.3 SIT A letter d. With the touch (note, not a hold/catch), there is a traveling violation. FYI -

Traveling ...
 

Not Really ...
 

A1 is holding the ball when he lifts his pivot foot to start a dribble and thus travels. The touch just identifies this act as a dribble rather than a bounce pass.

Agree. The travel happens when the ball is released to start a dribble with the pivot foot lifted. The subsequent touch merely confirms it was a dribble.

Although not arguing but rather just sayin'.... Suppose in the case play, A1 releases the ball, it hits the floor, and bounces for 30 seconds until coming to a rest, at which point, A1 is the first to touch the ball. This would be called traveling and based on your rational, the violation will have occurred well in the past. Can you think of any other type of play whereby an offense is guilty of an offense well in the past and not when it actually occurs? (maybe there is one but I cannot think of any)

Also, A1, while in the air, receives/catches a pass from A2. While still in the air, A1 drops the ball to the floor. Can A1 touch it? Grab it? Other? Legal?

Back To The Future (1985) ...
 

Do such plays involve a flux capacitor?

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.S...=0&w=269&h=161

Touch it? Keep dribbling? Grab it without dribbling again? Grab it and pass? Grab it and shoot? Grab it, or dribble it, and request a timeout? Grab it and chew gum?

All legal.

Exactly, as this is the start of a dribble, all done without the presence of a pivot foot. Although, the ball could not be grabbed/held and dribbled again.

One could get into a very convoluted network of semantics, interpretations, contradictions, and deletions when discussing the actual adjudication/mechanics of 4.44.3 SIT A letter d, 4.15.1 SIT C, and 4.15 comment, as well as the somewhat contradictory phrases surrounding a dribble, traveling, etc.

A1 grabs a defensive rebound with two hands and , while still in the air, taps the opponent's backboard with the ball. A1 lands and begins dribbling. Legal? Yes, as holding the ball while touching the opponent's backboard is not considered to be a dribble just as holding the ball and touching the floor is not. Now, A1 grabs a defensive rebound and, while in the air, throws the ball gently off the opponent's backboard. A1 lands, grabs the ball, and begins dribbling. Are you going to call an illegal dribbling violation? Yes.

What does all this mean? Not a lot.;)

A Rogue Elephant Tried To Shell Him (1997) ...
 

Made me chuckle. Thanks.