Interesting Play

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

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?

No. You are on your knees. The rules do not say anything about being on your knees you have a pivot foot. That is why the debate is what you can do if you are on your knees. Because a player could get possession the first time while on their knees. There is no pivot foot. By rule they just cannot get up. Now what that means if you are on both knees is the debate here.

Peace

[Ignats75]

Elsewhere in the record book, the entire leg is treated as one. (Kicked ball for instance). It used to be the ball had to hit the foot. Now any part of the leg is a violation.

And think about the position of the leg. Its not possible to be on your knees without the feet being in contact with the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Its not possible to be on your knees without the feet being in contact with the court.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Elsewhere in the record book, the entire leg is treated as one. (Kicked ball for instance). It used to be the ball had to hit the foot. Now any part of the leg is a violation.

And think about the position of the leg. Its not possible to be on your knees without the feet being in contact with the court.

In the video, I don't see her left foot leave its spot until after she starts her dribble.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

In the video, I don't see her left foot leave its spot until after she starts her dribble.

And remember, it's the something other than hands or feet touching the floor after falling to the floor after standing and holding the ball that makes some situations (not this) a travel.

Sometimes it's not the shoes.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No. You are on your knees. The rules do not say anything about being on your knees you have a pivot foot. That is why the debate is what you can do if you are on your knees. Because a player could get possession the first time while on their knees. There is no pivot foot. By rule they just cannot get up. Now what that means if you are on both knees is the debate here.

Peace

I thought the debate here was whether or not you can go to your knees from laying prone on your stomach?