Interesting Play

[thedewed]

So no one can say what an attempt to stand would entail, if not this? that's problematic. It has to be intended to mean something, does it not? what conduct does it prohibit, if not starting the process to stand? and how do you start the process to stand from prone when possessing a ball, that would not include going to the knees?

logic should count for something here

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

So no one can say what an attempt to stand would entail, if not this? that's problematic. It has to be intended to mean something, does it not? what conduct does it prohibit, if not starting the process to stand? and how do you start the process to stand from prone when possessing a ball, that would not include going to the knees? logic should count for something here

In my opinion, Ms. Atkinson's interpretation included a poorly written rationale, and left some questions unanswered, or answered incompletely.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1046345

Until it shows up in the casebook, or as an annual interpretation, or a point of emphasis, don't lose any sleep over it. Attempting to get up is still a subjective judgement decision.

Coach: "What did she do wrong?"

thedewed: "She was attempting to get up."

Coach: "Thank you for the explanation thedewed. You're an outstanding official. What's with the ears?"

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In my opinion, Ms. Atkinson's interpretation included a poorly written rationale, and left some questions unanswered, or answered incompletely.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1046345

Until it shows up in the casebook, or as an annual interpretation, or a point of emphasis, don't lose any sleep over it. Attempting to get up is still a subjective judgement decision.

Coach: "What did she do wrong?"

thedewed: "She was attempting to get up."

Coach: "Thank you for the explanation thedewed. You're an outstanding official. What's with the ears?"

Do you really think subjective opinion should enter into refereeing when it can be avoided? after all, that results in different interpretations of an identical play. that doesn't help guide players or coaches regarding what the players can or can't do.

I know there is always going to be a little variability, but promoting that approach leads to more, IMHO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Do you really think subjective opinion should enter into refereeing when it can be avoided? after all, that results in different interpretations of an identical play. that doesn't help guide players or coaches regarding what the players can or can't do.

If it can be avoided? Sure.

But until then, it is what it is.

Until we get further clarification from the NFHS, this situation is like any one of the dozens of situations that we all encounter in a typical game where we have to make subjective judgments, especially in regard to fouls.

I coached for twenty-five years and I always taught my players, when on the floor, do not get up. Pass, shoot, or start a dribble (I called timeouts, not players), but don't try to get up. I'm pretty sure that most other coaches coach the same.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

So no one can say what an attempt to stand would entail, if not this? that's problematic. It has to be intended to mean something, does it not? what conduct does it prohibit, if not starting the process to stand? and how do you start the process to stand from prone when possessing a ball, that would not include going to the knees?

logic should count for something here

My logic tells she didn't attempt to stand up because she purposely stopped at the point where she was on her knees, then she started a dribble before successfully standing up. My logic tells me if she were attempting to stand up, she wouldn't have started a new activity after being on her knees, she would have continued doing something that got her on her feet without dribbling the ball.

There is a difference between fact and opinion. The NFHS wording of this rule leads to different interpretations. That is easily remedied by adding a phrase to the rule itself ("acts including rising up on one's knees) or adding a case play that includes the specific act of rising to one's knees or publishing an official interpretation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The NFHS wording of this rule leads to different interpretations. That is easily remedied by added a phrase to the rule itself ("acts including rising up on one's knees) or a case play that includes the specific act of rising to one's knees.

Agree. Well stated. But will it be remedied? We can always hope.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My logic tells she didn't attempt to stand up ... standing up ... stand up ...

Another complicating factor is that the rulebook and the casebook don't have consistent language.

Is attempting to stand up the same attempting to get up? If not, why the "or"?

How important is the phrase attempting to get to the feet? It's certainly not the same as getting one's knees.

4-44-5-B: A player holding the ball: After gaining control while on the floor and touching with other than hand or foot, may not attempt to get up or stand.

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 request 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)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My logic tells she didn't attempt to stand up because she purposely stopped at the point where she was on her knees, then she started a dribble before successfully standing up. My logic tells me if she were attempting to stand up, she wouldn't have started a new activity after being on her knees, she would have continued doing something that got her on her feet without dribbling the ball.

There is a difference between fact and opinion. The NFHS wording of this rule leads to different interpretations. That is easily remedied by adding a phrase to the rule itself ("acts including rising up on one's knees) or adding a case play that includes the specific act of rising to one's knees or publishing an official interpretation.

The entire travel rule is written to define what is legal and declares anything else as illegal. Since the case play that lists what a player on the ground may do and doesn't mention this as something that is legal, it is not legal. If a player were to rise to the feet, that wouldn't just be an attempt to stand up, it would actually be successfully standing up. If they only wanted a successful or complete attempt to stand to be a violation, it wouldn't say "attempt" in the rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The entire travel rule is written to define what is legal and declares anything else as illegal.

"The Camron Rust Adage" Ⓒ 2021 Camron Rust

Regarding traveling, if it's not legal, it's illegal.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The entire travel rule is written to define what is legal and declares anything else as illegal. Since the case play that lists what a player on the ground may do and doesn't mention this as something that is legal, it is not legal. If a player were to rise to the feet, that wouldn't just be an attempt to stand up, it would actually be successfully standing up. If they only wanted a successful or complete attempt to stand to be a violation, it wouldn't say "attempt" in the rule.

We have a case play that clearly says what they can do on their back. Well, there needs to be clarification as to what you can do on your stomach or on your side. If just getting to your knees from that position is illegal, why not say so? Problem solved. Then those that think this is illegal can move on with life. I am not calling a violation for someone to come to their knees. Just not and the rule does not make it clear that is a violation and never considered that all these years until this topic. So again, wording can be added to make this clear. And it appears again the people that actually write the rules feel the same. But we have wordsmiths out there that need every little "I" dotted and "T" crossed. I am not one of them, but putting in additional language might be helpful, even if you say this is illegal.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We have a case play that clearly says what they can do on their back. Well, there needs to be clarification as to what you can do on your stomach or on your side.

Great post. Agree 100%.

But, until the NFHS clarifies, I'm going with "The Camron Rust Adage" Ⓒ 2021 Camron Rust

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The entire travel rule is written to define what is legal and declares anything else as illegal.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This play is traveling. This case plays details what the player may do. The case says they may sit up if they're on their back. It doesn't say they can rise to their knees if they're on their belly. If that were to be legal, it would be listed. Further, the travel rule is one that is based on listing what is legal and what is not specified as legal isn't.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"The Camron Rust Adage" Ⓒ 2021 Camron Rust ... Regarding traveling, if it's not legal, it's illegal.

And, of course, for almost all other interpretations, if it's not illegal, it's legal. No copyright, it's in the public domain.

[thumpferee]

BV game tonight!

28 yrs and never saw this play before this post. Never thought I'd ever see it again. Well, you know what they say about that.

As soon as he went to his knees from being prone on his stomache, TWEET!
Not a word! Well, besides, "great call".

If I knew how to post video, I would. Maybe a link if interested.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Not a word! Well, besides, "great call".

At least one coach must have been pleased.

And there's always a possibility that you had your mom and dad, wife and kids, in the bleachers.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

At least one coach must have been pleased.

And there's always a possibility that you had your mom and dad, wife and kids, in the bleachers.

I think it was the NFHS Rules Editor!