Throw-in/Traveling

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

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.

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

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.

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."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

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.

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

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.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BLydic

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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

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

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Old School

For example, you can not go from being on your butt to your knees, ..... You can not go from being on your knees to your feet, again, ....

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

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

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

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

Someone rolling side to side could very well end up in a different spot on the court,

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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