Interesting Play

[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.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

That's how I would interpret and apply that case book play, if it ever happens in my game (probability of occurring: super low. But I'll be ready, just the same).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

That's how I would interpret and apply that case book play ...

I find it odd that Ms. Atkinson, as the NFHS rule editor, misapplied this casebook interpretation with her "sloppy" language. Makes we wonder what else in her email was misapplied. Was she just ruling on the legality of starting dribble from the floor, with no regard as to how the player on the floor got upright to her knees? The late ruling of the official in the video complicates the video, it appears he's ruling that the start of the dribble from the floor was illegal, which it isn't, is that what she was referring to as legal, and not the prior possibility of a travel?

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I find it odd that Ms. Atkinson, as the NFHS rule editor, misapplied this casebook interpretation with her "sloppy" language. Makes we wonder what else in her email was misapplied. Was she just ruling on the legality of starting dribble from the floor, with no regard as to how the player on the floor got upright to her knees? The late ruling of the official in the video complicates the video, it appears he's ruling that the start of the dribble from the floor was illegal, which it isn't, is that what she was referring to as legal, and not the prior possibility of a travel?

Exactly! This is my thought. Well, Did a google search.Now I have other thoughts. As a rules editor, do you think passing the exam is part of the job description?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

As a rules editor, do you think passing the exam is part of the job description?

Ms. Atkinson has only been the new NFHS basketball rules editor for a few months.

If her email reply is any indication of the future, we're in for a bumpy ride.

Hold on for dear life.

Only time will tell.

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Just because a person in authority makes a statement, that doesn't make it an official interpretation ... An official interpretation is published guidance from the organization in authority.

Published (in some manner) would certainly be the best "official interpretation", but just short of that would be a statement from the editor of the NFHS rulebook, not just any "ordinary" interpreter. Also agree that the venue of where she makes such a should be considered, it's obvious that this "poorly worded", possibly hastily produced, email statement, sent to a single person, doesn't generate much confidence that this is some type of "official NFHS statement".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Amen. Takes a lot more than an indivdual email to change an overall stance of the organization.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Takes a lot more than an individual email to change an overall stance of the organization.

Depends on who the individual is, under what authority the sender has to send such an email, to whom the email is sent, and the purpose of the email.

If the editor of the NFHS basketball rulebook sent an email to the leaders of all fifty state interscholastic sports governing bodies regarding a NFHS rule or interpretation clarification, that has to carry some weight. Even one such email sent to just one state interscholastic sports governing body answering a clarification question would carry some weight in that state.

Of course, the state interscholastic sports governing bodies would have the responsibility to spread the word.

Is a lamp brought into a house to be set under a basket, or put under a bed; or is it not brought in to be set on a candlestick, a lampstand, so that that light may shed abroad in the whole house for the greatest benefit? (Mark 4:21)

This was not the case in the email quoted in this thread. This "poorly worded", possibly hastily produced, email statement, from a NFHS rules expert, sent as a reply to a single person (not knowing the actual question asked), and only shared with Forum members (and possibly a few others), doesn't seem to carry much weight.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

Ok! Let's assume that's what she meant. If it were you, would you leave it open ended like that or would you type in the last 6 words (and be the first to touch) to complete the citation? (Rhetorical)

Along with that, the question was not answered. She only referred to the rule and CP we are already aware of.

In her defense, I showed this to several people and a couple of them thought she slid on her knees. That's why I posed the question, what was asked.

I posed this to my higher ups who says it is absolutely a travel. Still not official. They also said white soles are permissible for officials. They are NOT, according to their own manual.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

... she slid on her knees.

I believe that she did slide to her knees, and also to her thighs, and also to her stomach, and also to her arms and elbows. Shoulders and head do not appear to be on the floor.

She went from laying flat on the floor to bringing everything above her knees (thighs, torso, head, arms) up to an angle of about 80 degrees to the floor, and thus, not on the floor.

Is that (flat to 80 degrees) attempting to get up? Ah, there's the rub.

And only then, after all that happened, she started a legal dribble.