Throw-in/Traveling

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mick

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

In most cases yes...since that will probably occur at the same time and be part of their momentum in getting to the ball. Once they've settled on that side however and are not moving, a change to a different surface will be a travel.

There is no precise definition of what "over" is. In my mind, it doesn't take 180 degrees to be "over".

[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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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


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

Yep. An incorrect position posted 50 times is no more correct than 10 times.

Show me anywhere that discusses how far over is over. Can't do it can you.

The whole intent is that a player on the ground in one position is not allowed to change positions for a better advantage. From back to side allows them to protect the ball much better since they can effectively cover it up in their belly...or make a better pass. The only actions we have that are allow once they get the ball on the ground is to sit up...but only if they are on their back.

What if the player were on their side? You suggest they could roll to their back. What then? If they're on their back, they could sit up. So, they can go from side to sitting, but only if they first go to their back? If they go directly, it's a travel??? That link of logic would suggest they could go from back to belly as long as they stopped on thier side for a moment.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Then there are people who have carefully considered several points of view, read the books, discussed them carefully with authoritative interpreters, observe various situations, discuss some more, and then come to a conclusion as to what is the best way to handle things. SOmetimes those people start to insist they are right..... because they are!! THey decide not to waste their time listening to lots of alternate points of view because they actually do know what the right thing is to do, and there's no point listening to a lot of pointless drivel. Hhhmmmmm,,,,

As long as we're not pointing fingers at any one in particular, it's okay to be offensive? Is that it, Nevada?

[Nevadaref]

What are you talking about?

I say some nice words about the man having an open mind and being willing to spend some time thinking about the issue, whether or not he eventually agrees with my take on the rule, and you go off about being offensive.

Get Padgett to give you some of his meds and CHILL OUT!!!

The only people in officiating who I find offensive are those who continue to make the same errors over and over, yet never learn from them.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What are you talking about?

I say some nice words about the man having an open mind and being willing to spend some time thinking about the issue, whether or not he eventually agrees with my take on the rule, and you go off about being offensive.

Get Padgett to give you some of his meds and CHILL OUT!!!

The only people in officiating who I find offensive are those who continue to make the same errors over and over, yet never learn from them.

Whenyou spend 10 pages on one thread and 8 pages on another telling people they're wrong, it sounds as though you're including them in this little summary of people you find offensive.

People who "don't have the courage to point out case plays to their rules interpreters." People who don't agree with your understanding of normal English words. People who don't ignore things that you ignore. People that don't place as much emphasis on the same things you do.

People who don't agree with your arcane interps of the rules. And thus keep making the same errors over and over, yet never learn to do it "correctly," namely your way. If that's NOT how you feel, you need to change your tune. It sounds as though you are offended by anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I say some nice words about the man having an open mind and being willing to spend some time thinking about the issue, whether or not he eventually agrees with my take on the rule, and you go off about being offensive.

The only people in officiating who I find offensive are those who continue to make the same errors over and over, yet never learn from them.

Iow, you find offensive anyone who disagrees with you, Junior.

It's lonely at the top, isn't it?

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

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.

[mick]

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.

Agreed.
Proceed.

[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.

[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.