Agree with Mick. Side-to-side is <b>not</b> rolling <b>over</b>. Your interpretation is not the usual one.

That's exactly it right there. The 180 is measured from his initial position. If he doesn't go beyond it, he hasn't "rolled over."

So if a standing player were to first pivot to his right, and then after returning to his original position pivoted to his left (on the same foot of course), would you penalize him for traveling? ;)

Different concept. Standing, you can also legally pivot a full 180 degrees to end up facing the opposite way as long as any part of your pivot foot remains in contact with the floor. You can't duplicate the same action lying down. That would be rolling over.

Wrong axis. It's an U.P.-Down. [X or Y axis -> good. Z axis -> bad.]
If player was on his feet, it would be a violation if he pivoted from hs head.

It wouldn't have to have been too long ago. Looked at the NCAA rule set also, nothing different. Must have been a personal interpretation learned at camp. I may have been a little quick on a few "roll overs" in the past.

If you adjudged any attempt to rise during those actions, yer still good. :)

Could you repeat this in English? Perhaps give an example because I am not sure I understand what you just said.

And I stated that before I wrote it, go back and read what I said. As far as it being nonsense, it makes more sense than what you just wrote. Officials need a way to try to determine how to enforce the rule because it sureassh!it ain't clear. Identifying a pivot in this situation is not nonsense, it's smart officiating. Just because you have never read it, or heard of it, doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed in other circles.

I will admit, the first time I heard it, I was surprise, but unlike you, I did not dismiss it as nonsense. It made sense and if it makes sense, I can use it. For example, you can not go from being on your butt to your knees, you switched pivots. You can not go from being on your knees to your feet, again, you switched pivots. The Fed. simply says you can't stand up with the ball after falling to the floor, but if you break down what they just said, it probably because of what I just stated.

As far as rolling over. I thought I had this figured out but now I am not sure.

...Not switched pivots, those are attempts to rise.

First off, it scares the hell out of me that OS was taking my side. :D

Now, this is not the first time my local interpreter has talked off the cuff. However, his interp does make sense to me. Someone rolling side to side could very well end up in a different spot on the court, especially if the side to side movement repeats. The person could "scoot" down the floor, however this is not likely - I have never really seen side to side movement occur for any extended period of time. It could be likened to a player pivoting on the heel and pivoting again on the toe and again on the heel. In this case, the foot never left the floor but movement of about a foot could be achieved on every pivot.

My library of rule/case books only go back to 2000-2001. I would like to see the wording of cases that address this situation. I also do thank those who have helped broaden my understanding of this situation.

IMO, (and, no, I can't support it with the rule or case book), this is what the "roll over" rule is designed to prevent.

So, if a player stays in the same spot, then the rolling from side-to-side is legal. If they move, it's illegal. Rolling over involves movement, so it's also illegal.

Ref in PA,
C'mon ....
Not specifically addressed?
Advantage gained?
Use your judgement and make a call.

Personally, I'm calling travel is the player rolls from one surface of the body to another. They can wobble all they want but when the contact point(s) completely, they've rolled over. For example....If they're on thier back/butt and roll to the side such that there hip is touching the floor and their butt is no longer touching the floor, I consider that rolling over. I don't think it is neccesary to wait until their belly touches to consititute a roll-over.

If they secure the ball on their side, you won't let them roll to their back ?
I bet you will. :)

Glad that we've got you thinking. Whether you end up agreeing with the position that I have advocated or not is truly not the issue. It is more important that you are willing to entertain new ideas and aren't closed off to considering things in a different light. That is the path to improvement. So many people are convinced that the way that they have always done it is the right way and the only way. They come up with certain standards on their own, which aren't solidly grounded in the rules, and then hold on to them tenaciously when confronted by another point of view simply because this has been their way of thinking for such a long time. It is often hard to allow oneself to let go of previously held convictions and learn new ideas.


Now it seems that I have to turn my attention to this individual. :)

:(
Come on Camron. Have you read the rest of this thread?