Interesting Play

[Mike Goodwin]

Sagacious: definition 2 obsolete : keen in sense perception. [merriam-webster.com, accessed 12/29/21]

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Sagacious: definition 2 obsolete : keen in sense perception. [merriam-webster.com, accessed 12/29/21]

Is Mike Goodwin implying that Kansas Ref is obsolete?

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is Mike Goodwin implying that Kansas Ref is obsolete?

Nope. Just the word.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Nope. Just the word.

You're right. The only obsolete Forum member is Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

[Remington]

Here is the reply we received from the NFHS…




I had taken some time away from email and am now catching up, so I apologize for my delayed response. 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
Director of Sports | Communications Associate


P: (317) 822-5730
A: PO Box 690 | Indianapolis, IN 46206
W: www.NFHS.org | www.NFHSLearn.com | www.NFHSNetwork.com
E: [email protected]

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Remington

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. Lindsey M. Atkinson, NFHS

Thanks Remington. Straight from the horses's mouth. I could disagree with her, but its pretty futile to disagree with the Grand Poobah. No, "Yes, buts ..." from me. Learned not to do that that over forty years of officiating.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Remington

Here is the reply we received from the NFHS…




I had taken some time away from email and am now catching up, so I apologize for my delayed response. 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
Director of Sports | Communications Associate


P: (317) 822-5730
A: PO Box 690 | Indianapolis, IN 46206
W: www.NFHS.org | www.NFHSLearn.com | www.NFHSNetwork.com
E: [email protected]

I would like to know what question was posed because I see no mention of the legality of the play in question. We know you can start a dribble while laying on the floor. We also know you can set the ball down and get up, which is stated as a violation above.

If going to the knees were legal, why wouldn't they specify it as they did with, while on your back you can sit up.?

An official interp would be nice. This one isn't IMO

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

If going to the knees were legal, why wouldn't they specify it as they did with, while on your back you can sit up.?

An official interp would be nice. This one isn't IMO

Agreed; 100%.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

I would like to know what question was posed because I see no mention of the legality of the play in question. We know you can start a dribble while laying on the floor. We also know you can set the ball down and get up, which is stated as a violation above. If going to the knees were legal, why wouldn't they specify it as they did with, while on your back you can sit up? An official interp would be nice. This one isn't ...

I agree with thumpferee's criticism (not just because I was wrong). It almost sounds like Lindsey Atkinson didn't put much thought and effort in her response.

However, not an official interpretation?

Lindsey Atkinson is the NFHS basketball rules editor. Can't be anybody, or anything, more official than that.

“He's bona fide. What are you?” (Penny Wharvey McGill, Oh Brother Where Art Thou)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

We know you can start a dribble while laying on the floor. We also know you can set the ball down and get up, which is stated as a violation above ...

Setting the ball down on the floor and getting up is legal as long as one doesn't subsequently touch the ball? Correct?

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

I would like to know what question was posed because I see no mention of the legality of the play in question. We know you can start a dribble while laying on the floor. We also know you can set the ball down and get up, which is stated as a violation above.



If going to the knees were legal, why wouldn't they specify it as they did with, while on your back you can sit up.?



An official interp would be nice. This one isn't IMO

I'm quite sure she meant setting the ball down to get up and then retrieving the ball.

Otherwise, simply setting the ball down would be the violation, whether the person got up or not.

BillyMac,

Just because a person in authority makes a statement, that doesn't make it an official interpretation, whether they said in front of a symposium or in an email exchange. Based on your logic, every word that comes out of an interpreter's mouth is an official interpretation even if they're at a bar drinking and having a conversation about basketball rules. I wish you would stop doing that and start using a little common sense on what an official interpretation or ruling is.

An official interpretation is published guidance from the organization in authority.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk