Uhhh..... thanks, Mark??

How it got through, replaced the O in his name with a zero.

Moderators, all, this is not me. The person who wrote this is new, notice the thread count for this user. Moderators, please see that Julie gets this as i did not write it. I believe the O in old school is a zero.

I don't think it will happen again. ;)

It may have been in an older case book, but I thought there was a better definition, specifically addressing the act of rolling over to avoid a defender.

Unfortunately I'm not very well organized and can't find my older books.

Since MTD and JR have been officiating for many years, I'm sure that either of them could tell us if anything such as that ever was printed in an older version of the books.
I doubt it, but let's wait and see what they say.

Ref in PA,
Have you noticed that OS is agreeing with your position? What does that tell you. :D

Also, if your dog were lying on his stomach and you told him to roll over would you be pleased if he turned 90 degrees to the side? Would you have considered him to have completed the request?

Sorry, but it is clear that turning to the side does not meet the commonly accepted definition of "roll over." Your interpreter is instructing you incorrectly.

All of the explanations on calling a violation iirc were predicated on the "over" part of "rolling over". No "back" to "front" or vice-versa iow. It always was legal though to swivel or move the ball away from a defender. You can turn side to side, lying face down or up; you can't turn over.

There certainly has never been anything ever written that even remotely resembles that stoopid nonsense that Old School posted.

Thanks, JR. :)
That is exactly what I have been taught. That also matches with the rules as written, which anyone can read for himself.

If he rolls back over to the other side to protect the ball, wouldn't that be 180 degree turn from the initial 90 degree roll to the side? Wouldn't that 180 degree turn from side to side be equivalent to the 180 degree roll over from belly to back? I can't see how you can not call this 180 degree rollover a travel because the ball handler did not complete a 180 degree roll over from his initial position.

And I agree with your initial 90 degree roll to the side as NOT being a travel. It's the side to side that I'm calling a travel.

So, you're saying the player who has legally gained possession on the floor has to decide which direction he's going to turn; sort of like choosing a pivot foot?

Agreed.
Proceed.

If the question is directed to me, that's not what I am saying. I am saying, like the pivot foot, first side he chooses to roll to is it. Roll to that side and back to initial position and that's it for me. If he goes back to original position and then goes to the other side, in MY opinion, that's a rollover.

Rethink that, JoeTheRef.