Interesting Play
 

https://youtu.be/nVCSGbbuXBg

Had a coach send this to me and I've never seen this in a game.

4.44.5 SITUATION B:

A1 dives for a loose ball and slides after gaining control. A1 is in a position either on the 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, the player may not roll over. If flat on the 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)

Tried To Get Up ...
 

Thanks Remington. Nice video.

She tried to get up and then started a dribble. Illegal. Would have been legal if she started a dribble and then got up.

Smart player, she just "missed it by that much" (no pun intended).

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=218&h=167

I have a legal play. She did not get up until she dribbled. Nothing in the rules says you cannot get to your knees that I am aware of.

Peace

Attempt To Get Up ...
 

The interpretation doesn't say "get up" it says "any attempt to get to the feet" is traveling unless A1 is dribbling.

In the video, in my opinion, A1 is attempting to get to her feet before starting her dribble.

This is poorly worded interpretation. What does attempt to get up mean?

Is going from flat on the floor to her knees the beginning of an attempt to get up?

What does "roll over" mean? 90 degrees? 180 degrees? 360 degrees?

It's a good thing that I carry a protector with the extra whistle in my pocket.

These seem to be subjective judgement calls.

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)

How is getting on one's knees the same as trying to get on one's feet?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Before I commented I was very aware of the rule. Unless they clarify what it means to get up that will be a hole in the rule. Nothing to me by rule suggests that being on both knees is an attempt to get up. Simply there is no support for this other than some personal stance. If you can sit up on your butt and that is OK, then why would coming to both of your knees and then dribbling be an issue? Again the rules makers could suggest that one is OK and the other is not. I am not calling at thing on this play at all.

Peace

Subjective Judgement Decision ...
 

Ignore the later dribble and I saw movement from the floor in an upward direction. I thought that she was attempting to get up (and then decided to start a dribble). It's a subjective judgement decision.

She got her entire body above the knees off the floor. Was that an attempt to get up? Does she have to get all way up to be up?

Agree about more clarity needed. Also agree that being on both knees is 100% not an attempt to get up, but going from flat on the floor to both knees can be considered an attempt to get up. It's a subjective judgement decision.

Is she trying to get up? No. Legal.

Is she trying to get up? Yes. Violation.

Flat on one's back allows one to sit up. This is basically the upside down version of that, so why no broach of this specific situation in any interpretations, as with broaching the flat on the back situation? If the NFHS wanted to allow the upside down version of "sitting up" wouldn't they have added it to the interpretation? Maybe? Maybe not?

Then say you are using your own personal standard or the standard where you live, because nothing says that getting on both knees violates the rules in any way as the standard to get up. If they want that to be clearly understood, then show how you have violated coming off of your belly. All this play showed was what you can do on your back.

Peace

If Not Illegal, It's Legal, Or Is It ???
 

I did. It's a subjective judgement decision.

Agree that nothing says that getting on both knees violates the rules in any way as the standard to get up. But nothing says that getting on both knees in this situation is legal, other than if not illegal, it's legal, which really isn't a rule, but a well worn adage, but even if true, Camron Rust discovered possible exceptions to this adage in a recent thread about fumbles, which maybe not coincidentally, was also about travelling.

Hey, you are the one who stated that there could be "a hole in the rule". And I agree with you.

... but not on one's stomach, thus, the "hole in the rule".

There is a hole in the rule if you think that means it is getting up and others think otherwise. You had to go on and on as to correct what I said. But what else is new. Next thing you are going to tell me is that IAABO has a ruling that I do not give a damn about either.

Peace

Attempt ...
 

You didn't say anything qualifying about anybody else, you said it straight up (see below, assuming "they" means the NFHS).

I do not think that anybody is fully getting up here, rather, in my opinion, it's an "attempt to get up", as the rule states.

Once one deems her actions as an attempt to get up, it's illegal, don't have to wait for the "get up" to be completed.

Others may deem her actions not an attempt to get up.

That's why it's a subjective judgement call, one of dozens of subjective judgement calls that we are expected to make in a typical basketball game.

Whistle ...
 

Having nothing to do with the debate in this thread so far, it's interesting that the official in the video waits until the player starts her dribble, and completes three dribbles, to sound his whistle.

Patient whistle, late whistle, or just needed time to think about it?

Time to think about....they didn't know what they saw and waited to hear someone yell out travel:) It definitely looked weird.....

Thank You For The Help ...
 

Always appreciate help from fans.

Remember, weird doesn't always mean illegal.

There is nothing in the rule that says that coming to your knees is illegal or an attempt to get up. They address what you do on your back, but never address what that means. So again this is legal until stated otherwise and your stating otherwise does not and will not change my mind. So please stop trying.

Peace

Deemed ...
 

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

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.

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

Citations ...
 

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)

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.

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

Words Matter ...
 

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

An Attempt To Get Up ...
 

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

Hole In The Rule ...
 

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

Good, because so do I.

Overstated ...
 

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

Great Video ...
 

I've offered this video to Greg Austin for his Better Official You Tube channel.

He is considering reviewing it on his live "Five Play Friday" presentation on Friday, December 24, 2021, 10:00 a.m EST.

He should have a few dozen basketball officials from around the world on his live broadcast offering their opinions (Zoochy and Mike Goodwin should be there).

He mentioned the video today on his Wednesday live "Rule Questions" broadcast (no video, just a description), and there were few opinions offered with mixed opinions offered.

https://www.youtube.com/c/ABetterOfficial/featured

Again, Remington, great video. Thanks.

I can't see the video all that well, but I'll give my impression of it just the same. The player in white secures the ball from a prone position and "retracts" her body such that she is on both knees. Legal so far.

This part isn't clear on my screen, but if the player lifted her left knee before she started her dribble, and that is why the official ruled a traveling violation, then I agree with him.

I use 4.44.5 Situation C for support. Lifting the knee before starting a dribble (or moving the whole left leg in the case of this video), was an attempt to get up (rise to one's feet, i.e., stand), as evidenced by the fact that she did stand up just about the time the official ruled a violation.

This play is traveling.

This case plays details what the player may do.

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)

The case says they may sit up if they're on their back. It doesn't say they can rise to their knees if they're on their belly. If that were to be legal, it would be listed. Further, the travel rule is one that is based on listing what is legal and what is not specified as legal isn't.

Pivot Knee ...
 

Ah, it's the old lift the pivot knee trick. Gets them every time.

4.44.5 SITUATION C: A1 secures possession of the ball with one knee in contact with the floor. May A1 assume a standing position without committing a traveling violation? RULING: It depends on what A1 does. If A1 attempts to stand up while holding the ball, a traveling violation occurs. However, if A1 starts a dribble and then rises, no violation has occurred. Also, A1 could pass, try for goal or request a time-out from that position.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/98cAA...VLd/s-l400.jpg

Another Old Adage ...
 

Which, from this point on is to be referred to as "The Camron Rust Adage" Ⓒ 2021 Camron Rust

Add it to the old adage list, that includes, among others, "If it's not illegal, it's legal".

For The Good Of The Cause ...
 

You are where you were until you get where you're going.
Must have something in and nothing out.
Last to touch, first to touch.
Must sit a tick, don’t have to play a tick.
There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping.
Over the back isn't, on the back is.
Accidental isn't always incidental.
If you are not sure, don’t call it.
When the ball is dead, we must be alive.
Prevent if we can, enforce if we must.
Answer questions, not statements.
Anticipate the play, not the call.

Mixed Opinons ...
 

He showed the video and got mixed opinions. One thing that all agreed on is that if she had started out on her knees that it would be legal for her to start a dribble and get up.

If she were laying on her back, or sitting on her butt, or prone on her side, it would be legal for her to start a dribble and then rise up.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Start A Dribble ...
 

Absolutely agree, but she did none of those in the video, so those situations were not broached.

It's always legal to dribble and then stand up or sit down or roll over, so I don't know why everybody needed to agree that if she's on her knees it's legal for her to dribble and then stand up.

That is not something we needed confirmation for.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

100% Agreement ...
 

Because it was the one thing that we could all agree on, for the obvious reasons as stated by Raymond.

Everything else was less obvious.

If that was the conclusion of that conversation, it was a very fruitful.

I had a discussion with my neighbor yesterday about climate change and we agreed that the earth revolves around the sun.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Fruitful ...
 

Which is why the conversation wasn't very fruitful, which was my point.

We also agreed that a basketball is inflated and is not stuffed.

Astronomy ...
 

Nitpicking, but not true. The Earth and the Sun both revolve around the barycenter (center of mass) between them.

But I do understand your point.

Perhaps my point (a lack of agreement on the actual call) was too subtle.

Merry Christmas.

Here’s a solution for the NFHS, adopt the NBA rule and allow players to stand up. Any rule that rewards hustle and means less whistles is good in my eyes.

It seems to me if I was lying on my belly and wanted to get up I would rise to my knees first. Just a thought.

Give Me Fifty Private ...
 

There's always the "push up method".

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.k...=0&w=218&h=164

Yeah, but the rule does not say going to your knees in itself is illegal. If it did, then that would solve the confusion.

Peace

Traps, Trips, & Tripping
 

*Regarding your point #5: In a recent pregame chat with my crew, we shared our views on this type of action. A play where dribbler is attempting to drive past a defender [B1] who is in LGP and then trips over the foot of defender and falls down. A foul is expected to be called on B1. Or equally common, when A1 is trapped by B1+ B2, [with less than 2 feet of open space betwixt] then tries to force/split the trap, stumbles after contacting the leg of either B and falls down subsequently loses the ball, and a foul is expected to be called on either B. In both plays the foot, torso or leg of either B was there first and was maintained in normal position (no obtrusive extension). Collectively, we'd all observed amongst ourselves and others a foul was called on either B. So, we vowed to call these types of action correctly in our game that day; mindful of recognizing proper LGP by the either B. I had the first crack at it in the first qtr when an A1 was trapped by a B1+B2, who'd established and maintained their LGP, at the FT semicircle and tried to split them on a straightline drive try for goal. The A1 tripped on thigh of a B and fell down, lost the ball and a B advanced the ball for fast break score. No whistle from me or anyone e else. In transition the A coach ripped my azz [which I expected]: "Didn't you see that tripping foul?!" He exclaimed. "Now he's hurt", he said while pointing at his A1 limping on the court. And he called a timeout to replace the limping A. Then, he asked me again during the timeout why no foul was called. I replied to the A coach: "Hay coach, your was not tripped, he just tripped on the defender who was already there first. Coach any player has a right to a spot on the floor provided he gets there first." Then A coach retorted, "Sir, everybody calls that a foul, you can't just make up your own rules." I replied, "Coach, the other refs called that a foul because the defense was probably not in LGP, but on that play the defense was in LGP. If it was your players on defense I would no-call it the same way." He paused, looked a bit stunned, and said nothing else. But for the rest of that game, no other player tried to dribble-split force their way through traps, I observed them to subsequently make passes over the trap or employ stratagems that altogether avoided traps (e.g., speed dribbling around traps, backup dribb!es, step-thru passes, etc.). Ostensibly, the teams therefore adapted to how the game was being called.

Trips And Tripping ...
 

2004-05 NFHS Casebook: 10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

4-37-3: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

10-7-1: A player must not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

Regarding the subject/content of the video that originated this Thread: I have a Legal dribble established by the player after recovering the ball, so "no-call". Thanks.

Dribble ...
 

I believe that all would agree that the dribble was legal.

After gaining possession of a loose ball with knees on the floor, one can legally start a dribble (and one can then legally continue to dribble and stand up), pass, shoot, or request a timeout.

The debate is about a travel, not about possible illegal dribble. Some believe that the player, preceding the start of the dribble, was attempting to get up, others believe that the player, preceding the start of the dribble, was not attempting to get up.

It's a subjective judgement call.

4-44-5-B: Travel: 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)

What is defined as rolling over?
 

We were debating this tonight. How do you judge rolling over either from the stomach or the back? Is it from stomach to back or back to stomach that is illegal? To the side? So many degrees? We've read and found all of the rules and case book plays previously mentioned but can't conclude about the rolling over part.

It's not defined in the books or interps.

Protector ...
 

Look That Up In Your Funk And Wagnalls ...
 

... and Funk and Wagnalls weren't very helpful: To turn around, or partly turn around.

Yeah. Thank you Funk. Thank you Wagnalls. For nothing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w_BaJEry-fM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Well regarding whether or not a travel occurs is left to the sagacity of the referee who has primary coverage of the play.

Boo The Umpire ...
 

Or the umpire, or the other umpire.

Sagacity?

“Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do.” (Mark Twain)

Samuel Clemens used to live right up the street from me.

I mean, from where I live now.

I'm not that old, but Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is.

Kansas Ref…..ignore BillyMac’s critique. I, for one, appreciate the profundity of your word selection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't defined, but I'm OK with a player settling from this/her side to back or stomach....about a 1/4 turn. But, I'm not OK with going from left side to right side...anything nearing 180degrees is, to me, turning over.

Words Matter ...
 

Already sent Kansas Ref a personal message saying the same.

I actually used the word "musings" for the first time in my life on the Forum yesterday. Had to double check the spelling and to make sure it meant what I wanted it to mean. I did not do very well on the vocabulary part of my high school SAT. My English teacher, Mr. Baumgartner, was very disappointed.

Profundity? Really?

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

Obsolete ...
 

Is Mike Goodwin implying that Kansas Ref is obsolete?

Nope. Just the word.

The Cheese Stands Alone ...
 

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

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]

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

Legal Play ...
 

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.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.x...=0&w=187&h=173

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

Agreed; 100%.

Not An Official Interpretation ???
 

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)

Setting Ball Down On Floor ...
 

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.

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).

Sloppy Language ...
 

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?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/16-AK3wQaTQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

Official Interpretation ...
 

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".

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=300&h=300

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

Authority ...
 

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.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.9...=0&w=300&h=300

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

Peace

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.

Depends ...
 

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.

The Bee's 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.

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?

Only Time Will Tell ...
 

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.

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

With strong arms and toned abs?

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

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.

Not Possible ???
 

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

Hands And Feet ...
 

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.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=245&h=175

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

Road Less Traveled ...
 

The debate took a turn.

The debate is if you can come to your knees. You do not have a pivot foot while on the floor. You just do not. That should not be a debate.

Peace

Pivots ...
 

... nor pivot knees, pivot cheeks, pivot elbows, pivot stomach, pivot back, pivot head, etc.

Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)

NFHS Interp
 

Here is what we received from NFHS:


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

Which most of us said in the first place. People love to add crap to every play.

Peace

Poorly Worded ...
 

Hasn't gotten any better since it was posted the first time.

Yes the player did gain control on the floor. Legal.

Yes the player begins her dribble from the floor (from her knees). Legal.

What happened in between?

Did she attempt to stand up by moving from flat on her stomach to her knees with more than half of her body upright?

Ah, there's the rub.

The cherry on top of the sundae is that it is not illegal for such a player to set the ball down and stand up.

It is illegal for such a player to set the ball down, stand up, and touch the ball, an interpretation apparently not well understood by Ms. Atkinson.

What else isn't well understood by Ms. Atkinson?

And they saw the video and gave you their interpretation. You can not accept it and that is fine, but the people that would know seemed to evaluate the situation directly. So if you want to keep racking your brain over this, I guess. I am not calling a traveling for this ever unless they change the rule or get specific with the interpretation.

Peace

As I said before, I'm confident she is quite aware touching the ball again is part of the violation. Because, like I said before, otherwise the violation would be for simply putting the ball down.

She is not writing a formal thesis, she is counting on common sense that touching ball again assumed.

Groundhog Day ...
 

I can accept her interpretation, I just can't accept her poorly written rationale, leaving some questions unanswered, or answered incompletely.

Would have also liked to have seen the question. There's a possibility that she's not focusing on the debate that we're having. I don't believe that anyone here is questioning the legality a player to legally begin a dribble from her knees. It's not part of our debate. Yet, Ms. Atkinson seems to be concentrating on that aspect of the play.

A good question would have been: As the player moves from flat on the floor to her knees, is she attempting to get up? What is considered an attempt to get up?

Also, she may have been focusing on the incorrect call of the official, apparently (if not a really late whistle) not allowing the player to legally begin a dribble from her knees.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.d...=0&w=300&h=300

this discussion is amusing from a logic perspective. I think the language needs to be clarified or it's a travel. here's why: what exactly would those with the opposite take consider an 'attempt' to stand from a prone position on the stomach that is different from this? attempt really has to mean a partial execution of the process of standing. in this case, how do you stand from laying down without first getting to your knees, particularly when holding a ball? and in this case, the evidence that she was in the process of standing is more conclusive since she, in fact, ended up standing in a fluid continuous manner.

so the question is, again, what would you consider to be an attempt to stand, if not this?

I do agree that in reality this should be officiated from the standpoint of being apprehensive about blowing the whistle from a reward hustle perspective, but from a reasonable interpretation of the written word, the conclusion is that it is a travel.

Will anyone answer the question what is an attempt to stand, if not this? how would you start to stand holding a ball without eventually in the process coming to both knees? give us an example of what other situations an attempt to stand includes. be specific. or give up your position.

I sat in some meeting with Fran Martin where she spent 10 minutes talking about things like whether hair bands needed to be the same color as the uniform. not impressed with her approach of what is important when officiating a game lol. but i used to let them play and get involved when only necessary, as players in particular prefer the game to be called. let minor stuff go where you can, but make sure to get the activity that creates advantage , with the additional of conduct that could lead to problems.