Interesting Play

[JRutledge]

Before I commented I was very aware of the rule. Unless they clarify what it means to get up that will be a hole in the rule. Nothing to me by rule suggests that being on both knees is an attempt to get up. Simply there is no support for this other than some personal stance. If you can sit up on your butt and that is OK, then why would coming to both of your knees and then dribbling be an issue? Again the rules makers could suggest that one is OK and the other is not. I am not calling at thing on this play at all.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This is poorly worded interpretation. What does attempt to get up mean? Is going from flat on the floor to her knees the beginning of an attempt to get up?

Originally Posted by Raymond

How is getting on one's knees the same as trying to get on one's feet?

Ignore the later dribble and I saw movement from the floor in an upward direction. I thought that she was attempting to get up (and then decided to start a dribble). It's a subjective judgement decision.

She got her entire body above the knees off the floor. Was that an attempt to get up? Does she have to get all way up to be up?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless they clarify what it means to get up that will be a hole in the rule. Nothing to me by rule suggests that being on both knees is an attempt to get up.

Agree about more clarity needed. Also agree that being on both knees is 100% not an attempt to get up, but going from flat on the floor to both knees can be considered an attempt to get up. It's a subjective judgement decision.

Is she trying to get up? No. Legal.

Is she trying to get up? Yes. Violation.

Flat on one's back allows one to sit up. This is basically the upside down version of that, so why no broach of this specific situation in any interpretations, as with broaching the flat on the back situation? If the NFHS wanted to allow the upside down version of "sitting up" wouldn't they have added it to the interpretation? Maybe? Maybe not?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree about more clarity needed. Also agree that being on both knees is 100% not an attempt to get up, but going from flat on the floor to both knees can be considered an attempt to get up. It's a subjective judgement decision.

Is she trying to get up? No. Legal.

Is she trying to get up? Yes. Violation.

Flat on one's back allows one to sit up. This is basically the upside down version of that, so why no broach of this specific situation in any interpretations, as with broaching the flat on the back situation? If the NFHS wanted to allow the upside down version of "sitting up" wouldn't they have added it to the interpretation? Maybe? Maybe not?

Then say you are using your own personal standard or the standard where you live, because nothing says that getting on both knees violates the rules in any way as the standard to get up. If they want that to be clearly understood, then show how you have violated coming off of your belly. All this play showed was what you can do on your back.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then say you are using your own personal standard or the standard where you live, because nothing says that getting on both knees violates the rules in any way as the standard to get up.

I did. It's a subjective judgement decision.

Agree that nothing says that getting on both knees violates the rules in any way as the standard to get up. But nothing says that getting on both knees in this situation is legal, other than if not illegal, it's legal, which really isn't a rule, but a well worn adage, but even if true, Camron Rust discovered possible exceptions to this adage in a recent thread about fumbles, which maybe not coincidentally, was also about travelling.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless they clarify what it means to get up that will be a hole in the rule.

Hey, you are the one who stated that there could be "a hole in the rule". And I agree with you.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... showed was what you can do on your back.

... but not on one's stomach, thus, the "hole in the rule".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I did. It's a subjective judgement decision.

Agree that nothing says that getting on both knees violates the rules in any way as the standard to get up. But nothing says that getting on both knees in this situation is legal, other than if not illegal, it's legal, which really isn't a rule, but a well worn adage, but even if true, Camron Rust discovered possible exceptions to this adage in a recent thread about fumbles, which maybe not coincidentally, was also about travelling.



Hey, you are the one who stated that there could be "a hole in the rule". And I agree with you.



... but not on one's stomach, thus, the "hole in the rule".

There is a hole in the rule if you think that means it is getting up and others think otherwise. You had to go on and on as to correct what I said. But what else is new. Next thing you are going to tell me is that IAABO has a ruling that I do not give a damn about either.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is a hole in the rule if you think that means it is getting up and others think otherwise.

You didn't say anything qualifying about anybody else, you said it straight up (see below, assuming "they" means the NFHS).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless they clarify what it means to get up that will be a hole in the rule.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... think that means it is getting up ...

I do not think that anybody is fully getting up here, rather, in my opinion, it's an "attempt to get up", as the rule states.

Once one deems her actions as an attempt to get up, it's illegal, don't have to wait for the "get up" to be completed.

Others may deem her actions not an attempt to get up.

That's why it's a subjective judgement call, one of dozens of subjective judgement calls that we are expected to make in a typical basketball game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Once one deems her actions as an attempt to get up, it illegal, don't have to wait for the "get up" to be completed.

Having nothing to do with the debate in this thread so far, it's interesting that the official in the video waits until the player starts her dribble, and completes three dribbles, to sound his whistle.

Patient whistle, late whistle, or just needed time to think about it?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You didn't say anything qualifying about anybody else, you said it straight up (see below, assuming "they" means the NFHS).


I do not think that anybody is getting up here, rather, in my opinion, it's an "attempt to get up", as the rule states.

Once one deems her actions as an attempt to get up, it's illegal, don't have to wait for the "get up" to be completed.

Others may deem her actions not an attempt to get up.

That's why it's a subjective judgement call, one of dozens of subjective judgement calls that we are expected to make in a typical basketball game.

There is nothing in the rule that says that coming to your knees is illegal or an attempt to get up. They address what you do on your back, but never address what that means. So again this is legal until stated otherwise and your stating otherwise does not and will not change my mind. So please stop trying.

Peace