Road Less Traveled ...
 

The debate took a turn.

The debate is if you can come to your knees. You do not have a pivot foot while on the floor. You just do not. That should not be a debate.

Peace

Pivots ...
 

... nor pivot knees, pivot cheeks, pivot elbows, pivot stomach, pivot back, pivot head, etc.

Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)

NFHS Interp
 

Here is what we received from NFHS:


My interpretation of this video based on the rule/case play is that this a legal play.

The player gains control on the floor and begins her dribble from the floor which the Case Play 4.44.5B illustrates as a legal play. Rule 4-44-5b is addressing a travel in which a player stands without dribbling either holding her setting the ball down to stand up. Both of these situations would be a travel.

I also forwarded the video to Fran Martin for her thoughts and copied her on this response.

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Happy holidays!
Lindsey

Lindsey M. Atkinson, CIC, RAA

Which most of us said in the first place. People love to add crap to every play.

Peace

Poorly Worded ...
 

Hasn't gotten any better since it was posted the first time.

Yes the player did gain control on the floor. Legal.

Yes the player begins her dribble from the floor (from her knees). Legal.

What happened in between?

Did she attempt to stand up by moving from flat on her stomach to her knees with more than half of her body upright?

Ah, there's the rub.

The cherry on top of the sundae is that it is not illegal for such a player to set the ball down and stand up.

It is illegal for such a player to set the ball down, stand up, and touch the ball, an interpretation apparently not well understood by Ms. Atkinson.

What else isn't well understood by Ms. Atkinson?

And they saw the video and gave you their interpretation. You can not accept it and that is fine, but the people that would know seemed to evaluate the situation directly. So if you want to keep racking your brain over this, I guess. I am not calling a traveling for this ever unless they change the rule or get specific with the interpretation.

Peace

As I said before, I'm confident she is quite aware touching the ball again is part of the violation. Because, like I said before, otherwise the violation would be for simply putting the ball down.

She is not writing a formal thesis, she is counting on common sense that touching ball again assumed.

Groundhog Day ...
 

I can accept her interpretation, I just can't accept her poorly written rationale, leaving some questions unanswered, or answered incompletely.

Would have also liked to have seen the question. There's a possibility that she's not focusing on the debate that we're having. I don't believe that anyone here is questioning the legality a player to legally begin a dribble from her knees. It's not part of our debate. Yet, Ms. Atkinson seems to be concentrating on that aspect of the play.

A good question would have been: As the player moves from flat on the floor to her knees, is she attempting to get up? What is considered an attempt to get up?

Also, she may have been focusing on the incorrect call of the official, apparently (if not a really late whistle) not allowing the player to legally begin a dribble from her knees.

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

this discussion is amusing from a logic perspective. I think the language needs to be clarified or it's a travel. here's why: what exactly would those with the opposite take consider an 'attempt' to stand from a prone position on the stomach that is different from this? attempt really has to mean a partial execution of the process of standing. in this case, how do you stand from laying down without first getting to your knees, particularly when holding a ball? and in this case, the evidence that she was in the process of standing is more conclusive since she, in fact, ended up standing in a fluid continuous manner.

so the question is, again, what would you consider to be an attempt to stand, if not this?

I do agree that in reality this should be officiated from the standpoint of being apprehensive about blowing the whistle from a reward hustle perspective, but from a reasonable interpretation of the written word, the conclusion is that it is a travel.

Will anyone answer the question what is an attempt to stand, if not this? how would you start to stand holding a ball without eventually in the process coming to both knees? give us an example of what other situations an attempt to stand includes. be specific. or give up your position.

I sat in some meeting with Fran Martin where she spent 10 minutes talking about things like whether hair bands needed to be the same color as the uniform. not impressed with her approach of what is important when officiating a game lol. but i used to let them play and get involved when only necessary, as players in particular prefer the game to be called. let minor stuff go where you can, but make sure to get the activity that creates advantage , with the additional of conduct that could lead to problems.

Is the situation specifically stated as a violation? Nope. So why would I say this is a vioation when clearly this as never stated as a violation? Again so you are giving a personal opinion and we need more than that. And most of all, this was asked by the people at the NF and they said it was not a violation. And said that the information in the casebook did not apply the the video shown. It cannot get more clearer than that unless you just want to only accept an unofficial opinion. Now this is not something official from the organization as a whole, but it is clear that the NF does not see this as illegal.

Peace

I'm not going to abandon my point just because some random dude on the internet says I have to.

The player rose to their knees, without moving their left foot from its spot, and then purposely dribbled before continuing to get up to a standing position.

So as long as a player can keep one foot in the same position and doesn't move the other foot to a position that would help them stand up, I'll continue to consider this play legal.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

There is no provision to my understanding to even have the foot stay in a basic position. I have no issues with not making a call in the play shown. And until the NF or my state says otherwise with a specific example, I am also not going to trust some dude that claims otherwise on the internet. Good discussion but the fact still remains. If they want this to be illegal, they have ways to make it be known. Otherwise, this is something not stated as illegal and I am not going to use only my personal feelings to make a call or not. They could stay coming to your knees after being on your stomach is illegal. Right now, no such wording.

Peace

Who's They ???
 

I believe it was asked by Remington and a head coach. Not sure if JRutledge knows if Ms. Atkinson prefers the pronoun they, or if he really meant they (plural). I believe it was an interpretation by only one person, granted, the NFHS Director of Sports, and the new basketball rules editor, but only one person. I'm not even sure if we got an opinion from Ms. Martin, NFHS Basketball Rules Committee chair.

Violation ???
 

100% agree with JRutledge. His point is inarguable and undeniable (again, watching too many Perry Mason reruns on cable).

Attempting to get up is a ...