Interesting Play

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is nothing in the rule that says that coming to your knees is illegal or an attempt to get up.

Agree. But anything deemed by an official to be an attempt to get up is illegal.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Agree.

With her entire body flat on the floor on her stomach, she puts her left hand firmly on the floor with a bent elbow and straightens her arm, pushing upward, causing her upper legs, entire torso, including hips, head, and both arms to all move upward in unison, eventually getting to her knees.

Is that an attempt to get up?

Some (JRutledge and Raymond), with good reason, say no.

I, and the official in the video, with good reason, say yes.

It's a subjective judgement call.

Is it an attempt to get up even before she gets to her knees?

It's a subjective judgement call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. But anything deemed by an official to be an attempt to get up is illegal.

If you say so.


People are allowed to read the interpretations and decide what it means. This to me is not an attempt to get up and in my game, I am not calling a violation. I have seen this before and never called a violation. You have to do more than come to your knees. And if the NF wants more specifics, they can provide them. We do not need your approval for that position. I actually live closer to the NF office than you do. This is not a big issue, but you always make it bigger and debate with yourself while telling others what they should feel at the same time. I do not care what your opinion on the ruling is. I would not ask for clarification on this play. I gave my opinion, stand by it. If they want to come to both your knees to be a violation, state that in the next interpretation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... anything deemed by an official to be an attempt to get up is illegal.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you say so.

I do, but more importantly, the rule book and casebook interpretation say so.

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)

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This to me is not an attempt to get up and in my game, I am not calling a violation.

And if I was lucky enough to be your partner, and I happened to see the play, I wouldn't question your call. Not at all. In fact, if it happened again in our game I would try to mirror your call. It's a subjective judgement call.

[JRutledge]

The rulebook ad casebook does not specifically address this issue. So again, your personal thought process does not matter here. I do not care what you think about this. I was not asking. Read this thoroughly and look for contradictions. There was non. Coming to year knees and on both knees is not attempting to get up. You are on both knees. No reference you have made changes to that. Because if you are still on your knees, you did not get up. You work 2 man in your area, why would I care what you think about this?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rulebook and casebook does not specifically address this issue.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

They haven't, and it's still a "hole in the rule".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

They haven't, and it's still a" hole in the rule".

Then stop trying to tell me what to think about this. I stated my position and stood by it. I was not asking for your help to figure the rest out.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I stated my position and stood by it.

So you still believe that it's a "hole in the rule"?

Good, because so do I.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Because if you are still on your knees, you did not get up.

Agree. She didn't actually get up. She was unsuccessfully attempting to get up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. She didn't actually get up. She was unsuccessfully attempting to get up.

Now you can move on and stop reposting shit we already read and already considered in this conversation that was not even your question.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Appreciate this. Maybe I was getting too wound up. Sorry. No offense intended. Just a simple difference of opinion possibly overstated.

[Ignats75]

Serious question on this scenario. How does a player get to his/her knees without moving both feet?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Serious question on this scenario. How does a player get to his/her knees without moving both feet?

Don't know, but there is no feet requirement if you are on the floor prone. So it does not matter.

Peace

[Ignats75]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Don't know, but there is no feet requirement if you are on the floor prone. So it does not matter.

Peace

But once you are at one knee, doesn't that foot become the pivot foot? I'm not being argumentative, I'm trying to understand the logic. And I'm surprised that you say that there is no feet requirement when prone. If both feet are touching the floor, doesn't one automatically become by definition the pivot foot?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Serious question on this scenario. How does a player get to his/her knees without moving both feet?

With strong arms and toned abs?