Interesting Play

[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]

[crosscountry55]

Fran Martin. There’s a familiar name. I officiated one season in eastern Kansas eight years ago and I still vividly remember her annual rules seminar (she drove in from Topeka to give it….you know, like before Zoom was a thing).

She was already a legend in KS back then. I’m not surprised she’s now the national rules committee chair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[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?

[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".

[Raymond]

Will repeat, just because somebody in authority has a conversation doesn't make it an official statement or almost an official statement or just short of an official statement. You categorized her email exchange with a random official as an official interpretation. It wasn't and you were wrong for implying that it was.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You categorized her email exchange with a random official as an official interpretation. It wasn't and you were wrong for implying that it was.

I was half joking, half sarcastic, thus my Oh Brother Where Art Thou "bona fide" reference, but I agree with Raymond that it didn't go over well and didn't, obviously, come across this way.

[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