Throw-in/Traveling

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BLydic

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.

[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.

[JoeTheRef]

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.

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.

[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."

[JoeTheRef]

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.

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.

[Adam]

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?

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

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.

[mick]

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.

Rethink that, JoeTheRef.

[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 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.

[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.