Travel ...

[BillyMac]

Thirty-eight years and I've never seen this, nor will I probably ever see it again.

I observed two of my friends working a state tournament game a few nights ago and one of them nailed this odd and rare casebook call.

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 ... traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is first to touch the ball.

Not too shabby.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thirty-eight years and I've never seen this, nor will I probably ever see it again.

I observed two of my friends working a state tournament game a few nights ago and one of them nailed this odd and rare casebook call.

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 ... traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is first to touch the ball.

Not too shabby.

Yes, a good play to remember, not only for the events in the case play, but for when a player puts the ball on the floor, does not rise, and grabs the ball again. That would result in no-call.

Doubting that scenario will ever happen but now that I have mentioned it, probably happen next week.

[MechanicGuy]

Nice.

Also important to note that "put the ball on the floor" doesn't mean dribble, as it's colloquially used. It means to literally set the ball on the floor and then pick it up after rising.

It would be easy to read this language as not being allowed to dribble while you rise, which would be incorrect.

[bucky]

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 ... traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is first to touch the ball.

I would love to know who came up with this ruling and their rational behind it. I presume that the traveling rule and pivot foot requirements were years ahead of this play. Someone then decided that it would be considered traveling even though the player is neither holding the ball nor controlling it. Plus, they cared in the first place that it was even an action that should be considered illegal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

I would love to know who came up with this ruling and their rational behind it. I presume that the traveling rule and pivot foot requirements were years ahead of this play. Someone then decided that it would be considered traveling even though the player is neither holding the ball or controlling it.

It's an odd play and an odd ruling. Holding ball at beginning, holding ball at end, no player control in the middle, doesn't judge legal or illegal movement of pivot foot, pivot foot isn't even mentioned.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by bucky

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 ... traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is first to touch the ball.

I would love to know who came up with this ruling and their rational behind it. I presume that the traveling rule and pivot foot requirements were years ahead of this play. Someone then decided that it would be considered traveling even though the player is neither holding the ball nor controlling it. Plus, they cared in the first place that it was even an action that should be considered illegal.

I always assumed this was one of those "not permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule" sort of things. Allowing this would be an advantage not intended by the rule which says after gaining control while on the floor, the player may not attempt to get up or stand (paraphrasing rule).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I always assumed this was one of those "not permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule" sort of things. Allowing this would be an advantage not intended by the rule which says after gaining control while on the floor, the player may not attempt to get up or stand (paraphrasing rule).

That's how it was explained to me after my 1st or 2nd year in officiating. The person who explained it that way went on to become an NCAA-Women's regional observer and now is the women's coordinator of officials for the MEAC and CIAA.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I always assumed this was one of those "not permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule" sort of things. Allowing this would be an advantage not intended by the rule which says after gaining control while on the floor, the player may not attempt to get up or stand (paraphrasing rule).

I understand that angle. However, I would consider it a disadvantage to relinquish control of the ball temporarily. It is a risky move. Besides, starting a dribble is allowed. Seems no different to me as far as the advantage angle.