Throw-in/Traveling
 

Long-time reader, first time poster... I am a sophomore official and i have a couple of question about some situations:

1) a player dives at a loose ball and his momentum causes him to slide a across the floor. This is legal, correct?

2) a player who is lying on their back with the ball may sit up legally, correct?

3) I saw this many times last year and it seems a little fishy to me. A1 is inbounding the ball to A2. A1 uses a bounce pass which, on its way to A2 bounces either out of bounds or on the line (which I believe is the same as out of bounds) violation?

Thanks for your help.

Completely legal. The only way it would be illegal is if the ball handler somehow flipped over or tried to get up. Sliding on the floor alone is not a violation of the rules.

Legal. If you are talking about just sitting up and not trying to get completely off the floor.

This is a violation. You have to complete the pass without touching the out of bounds lines.

Peace

As a rising junior official, here are my answers.
1) legal play - there is no player control yet established so no violation.
2) legal play - A1 may sit up but he/she may not attempt to stand up.
3) illegal play - that's a violation - the throw in must be directly from OOB to IB.
Good questions BTW.
My rule/case books are not handy so I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'm sure that someone else will be posting that info for all to read.

How many of you would call this third one?

In the games I ref, I have only seen this once and I called it. The A1 was on the sideline and threw the pass oob along the sideline with english so it spun back onto the playing area after the bounce. A2 had B2 boxed and it was an easy retrieve for him.

I probably will not make this call on the endline..

I have called it and will call it again.

Peace

Good question. I would call it, but I know some officials would pass on it. I had a similar situation at camp this summer. A1 while making his throw in barely but clearly steps on the OOB line. There was no press or pressure being applied on the play, but I make the call. The observer asks why. I simply answered that it's a violation. He gave me his take which I don't remember 'cuz I simply nodded OK and let it go.

Be careful with #2. It depends on how he tries to sit up. If you're talking about lying flat on your back and just rasing our torso up so that now you are on your butt, I would say legal. But if you are lying on your back and turn your body and get up on your knees, using the ball to push yourself up, no-no! Traveling.

Here's a good question that i had happen in a Nat. tournament this summer. The player dives on the floor and secures the ball. Then sets the ball to the side of him and gets up. One hand on the ball. Is this legal?

1) Legal (4.44.5 B)
2) Legal (4.44.5 B) both plays are covered by the same case book entry
3) Violation (9-2-2)

Most people, I'm guessing, wouldn't define "sitting up" as "getting on one's knees".

Your play is illegal.

Why would this be a violation...an in-bounder can step on the line all they want - it's still OOB...if they step OVER the line onto the in-bounds area, then we have a violation, but not just for stepping on the line...

If A1 finishes the slide, he may not roll to either side to protect the ball. As you say, if he ends on his back, he may sit up. Once the body begins rotating after the slide has finished, the traveling violation occurs.

To answer your question, violation per 4.44.5 B. That case expounds on a lot of things.

I"ll call it if I see it, but I'm usually looking for contact on the floor, or thinking about the count, or checking the clock, or watching that sub that just walked to the table to be sure she stays there, or looking at the coach to see if he wants a TO or.... or.... or....

Okay, here's the laymen version of the rule and what I know about it. The OOB line closest to the player standing OOB, is OOB. IOW'S, the inbounder can place his foot on the outside part of this boundary line (farest from the court) while inbounding and it not be a violation, assuming the OOB line is 2 inches wide. Reason, he's still OOB. The OOB line is OOB. Now if his foot touches the edge of the court, across the OOB line, that is a violation. However, I always thought the ball must be passed directly onto the court, no acceptions. If you throw the ball off the boundary line, violation.

Was that at Verne's camp? If not, I had the same thing happen to a partner in a game that I worked. The clinicians reasoning was "don't go looking for stuff especially when there was no press in effect".
I thought the reasoning should've been because the player didn't cross the inside edge of the endline. But oh well, that's why they make the big bucks...

This is not an either/or situation. If I am the calling official I am going to watch the ball. If the ball ends up out of bounds, I have to now how it got there. The ball might touch another player before touching the line. You can watch both if you ask me. If you cannot watch both, you might be too close.

Peace

Perhaps this explains why I have never seen this happen in any of my games. But I have not seen it in any game I have watched either.

Close. All of the OOB lines are themselves OOB; not just the one closest to the player inbounding the ball.

OK, newbies, try this variation. A1 to inbound along the endline after a made basket by team B. He bounce passes to A2 who is also standing OOB along the same end line. The ball never touches inbounds. NF rules - legal or not?

Sorry - no help from Diebler.

Hey - I know he has nothing to do with this, but we haven't said his name in a long time and I thought he might be feeling neglected.

http://www.maxpreps.com/FanPages/Ima...5869f2b610.jpg

It doesn't happen much at all above the 6th grade level.

Oh Oh Oh! I know!

I assume this would be legal. since after a made basket have the entire baseline. and you are allowed to dribble the ball whether you have the baseline or not. I see no reason why this would be illegal. This is not an inbounds pass and therefore does not need to go directly onto the course (just like a dribble)


...I think...

sometimes I pretend like I can type fast, please ignore the myriad of errors in my previous post

Me too. But I had to call Deibler just to double-check. :cool:

It is illegal so someone cannot just throw the ball of any out of bounds object and not violate. A dribble suggests that you are maintaining position. A pass means you are giving away person possession. Would you advocate a regular pass to hit anything as long as the person receiving is inbounds?

Peace

There was actually some talk about this not being called in the NCAA Final Four game. That Florida was not stepping OOB before inbounding the ball. They where moving so fast that I don't think they were getting their feet down before the release in. I believe this was the arguement.

So if you back the logic, don't look for trouble, I guess you don't have a call. However, if you are doing your job, you should be watching this. I am under the philosophy that college ball should be called correctly, so I would make the call, especially with a 10 or more point lead. Not that that has anything to do with it, but it makes the call go over a lot better while you're sending the message to get your feet down before the inbound.

JRut,
are you referring to the original situation or the new one padgett posed? mine was the latter, this is a violation?
thanks for the clarification

I forgot you are new. Veterans of this board usually do not pay that much attention to what Mark says. :D

I was responding to the original situation.

Peace

It's a good thing you put that grinning face there, buddy. I was about to make a call to my buddy Ditka. You wouldn't want that. :cool:


http://soundbiteblog.com/wp-content/...7/06/ditka.jpg

Ditka, he defined greatness before that Diebler fella was even born.

Don't worry, Jeff. Ditka doesn't pay much attention to what Mark says either!

Hey, Mark-> :p (ps check your e-mail)

Maybe not, but I did go to HS with Dick Butkus' sisters. In fact, Dick used to tool around my town on a Harley while wearing leather. Man, you haven't seen anything scary until you've seen that. :eek:

The man cannot walk anymore. What is he going to do, waddle after me? :D

Peace

Yep, that's a great case play. Lots of information in there.
Unfortunately, you have hit upon one of my pet peeves. I see far too many officials penalize kids for making good plays by hustling and exerting effort simply because these officials don't fully understand the traveling rule. I don't know how you came to believe the above statements, but neither one of them is true.

Here's the text of that case play:
4.44.5 SITUATION B: A1 dives for a loose ball and slides after gaining control. A1 is in a position either on his/her back or stomach. What can A1 do without violating? RULING: A1 may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a time-out. Once A1 has the ball and is no longer sliding, he/she may not roll over. If flat on his/her back, A1 may sit up without violating. Any attempt to get to the feet is traveling unless A1 is dribbling. It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is first to touch the ball. (4-44-5b)

As you can see it is only illegal to "roll over." Now I don't know how you define that, but any reasonable person wouldn't consider it to be twisting to the side to protect the ball or the start of the rotation of the body.

The rules don't say that it is illegal to roll to the side, turn away from an opponent, or twist the body. If the NFHS wanted those actions to be illegal, they would have said so.

Perhaps JR will be kind enough to have his dog demonstrate rolling over for us. :)

Oh boy, here we go. What is the defintion of a roll over? I would say that if he's on his back and turns to his side, he rolled over to his side. No one is going to sit there and do a 360 roll over with the ball. That is not practical, however, the twist, the start of a twist or rotation can be viewed as a roll over. Your arguement has merit and if you want the Fed. to describe every single term in details, the book would be 3 times it's size. We'll see what the other scholars have to say about this.

Tend to agree with Nevadaref on this...the literal definition of "over" includes "used as a function word to indicate position on the other side." Hence, the other side of being face-down on the floor is being face-up.

Having said that, I openly admit to often being too quick on the whistle when I see the face-down player beginning to roll to one side or the other. Partners, coaches and evaluators have all commented that I need to hold just another second or two before going to the travel call. :o

I agree...:eek:

If he rolls to the side to protect the ball and defender comes to that side, then he rolls back to the other side to protect the ball, do you just let him do this roll back and forth until, I guess your five second count expires, if you're counting???

I just related an interpretation in plain english of my understanding of the rule as given to me by my local interpreter. If this is not how it it called in your area, by all means call it the way your interpreter tells you.

But just what does roll over mean? a complete 360 revolution? a 180 turn (front to back)? a 90 turn just to the side?

What I was taught to look for was a pivot area. Is the butt moving around or what ever else in contact with the floor? Normally there is only a pivot foot touching the floor and the pivot is remain in one spot.

I was really unaware of different interpretations concerning allowable movement after a slide. Also note that the play must gain control after the slide has begun.

I once called a travel on a player on the floor for rolling with the ball. His coach yelled at me "How can that be a travel?". I yelled back, "He moved his pivot cheek, coach".

Here's the best part. The coach replied, "Oh."

That's quite a punch line. You have a way with stories.

To add to this, and I don't think it's written anywhere. I also was told this by an interpretor. Looking for a pivot as RIP pointed out is a key (not the only key). In the adsence of a pivot foot, you go to the knees. In the absense of knees and feet being off the floor, you go to the butt for a pivot. If the player is lying flat on his a$$, that is his/her pivot, similiar to a jump stop. Now, if he rolls left, picking up the right buttock, the left buttock becomes the pivot, he then rolls back over the way, picking up the left buttock, he just switched pivots foots. That could be one reason the Fed. says you can't roll over.

Using this arguement, it would seem that you could legally roll one way, but not the other. However, consider the step, jump stop step. The player now does not have a pivot foot. If he steps again, or pivots again, after doing this step, jump step stop, it's a travel. The only thing he can do is pass, shoot, or call timeout.

Also want to point out that if the player lying on his buttock, attempts to get up to a knee. Again, he has just switched pivot foots. He went from buttock to knee, illegal. However, in my unique situation, the kid sat the ball next to him on the floor, and got up on his knees, but he had one hand on the ball. If he didn't have that one hand on the ball, I would say legal.

You might want to read case 4.44.5(B).

Good point thanks, 4.44.5b: It is also traveling if A1 puts ball on floor and rises and is first to touch the ball.

OOPS! Thanks for catching my error. You are correct concerning my original post. I meant to write that the player did step OVER the line. The observer still gave me the talk for making the call.

See my correction to my original post. He stepped OVER the line not just on it. I do although understand your point and I'm sure that was his point was also. Who's Verne?

It's not written anywhere because....well.....it's completely stoopid.

Your interpreter very obviously has about the same grasp of the rules as you do.

Lah me.......:rolleyes:

That's it. I'm putting you on ignore. JR is gonna have to carry this weight for a while, until you get banned again. I can't handle any more of this.

Maybe the mysterious wise man?

There he is, that's the O/S I know... :D

Is it? The foot is connected to the leg, the knee is connected to the leg, the buttock is connected to each leg. Can't have one without the other. Process of deduction.

If the feet are in the air but the body is on the floor, where is your point of reference?

You can't handle what? The truth! If you want to ban me for speaking the truth and telling it like it is, go right ahead. Just know one thing, you have been on ignore since you have been here.

Well, that just about says it all.:D

Why don't you go and discuss <b>Zen And The Dribble</b> with just another ref in the other thread for a while? Maybe you can straighten out everybody in that one too with the knowledge you have accumulated during your long and distinguished career.

Maybe we need a case book play for what can be done after doing a jump stop on the butt ~ ocks? :D

I believe that was Ernest P. Worrells buddy.

http://www.kovariks.net/pics/Ernest.jpg

Dang it, you beat me to it. Right, Vern?

:D

I really doubt that very many people have Rainmaker on their Ignore list...

And really - "butt pivot" is in the book??? Even when you start to come close to making a semi-valid point, you shoot your credibilty straight down the toilet by coming up with these outrageous things and claiming they are "in the book" or "that's the way it is called in D-I"...

And now I will finally go to my Ignore feature also.

Don't know how you got this past my ignore thing, but my brain still works. And I've read the book, and I KNOW it's not in there. Absolutely, in-f**ing-credible.

Folks, I know Juulie personally (and no, I don't mean in the biblical sense). Her reference above is to the word "freaking".

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.

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?

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".

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

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.

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?

What are you talking about? :confused:

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.

Admit it, you\'re just amped up because I criticized Howard\'s take on a play.:mad:

I get touchy myself sometimes.
I get annoyed when I see people post things such as in the "roll over" discussion in the traveling thread which are purely personal opinions and do not fit within the rules as written because I\'m tired of working games with people who call it that way. I\'ve had partners make these calls from the other side of the court when I\'m standing right in front of the play. :(

Furthermore, for an official to say or write these things only reinforces the myths of the game, makes it harder to educate the players and coaches properly, and encourages the spectators to holler for these calls because that\'s what they\'ve seen some other official call.

Yes, I get cranky every now and then just as the next guy. Yes, I\'m opinionated and am not afraid to say what I believe. That\'s also not a great difference from anyone else on this board. While I\'m sometimes sarcastic, biting, and have on occasion even been rude to some posters, I don\'t strive to generally treat people that way nor have I ever purposely tried to be offensive to you. In fact, I hold a healthy respect for you.

The bottom line is that you bristled when I asked if you had "the courage" to ask Howard about the case book play that contradicts him. Well phrasing it that way was certainly less than kind, but the point made remains.
During your phone conversation did you, in fact, inquire about the play and point out that it says something directly contrary to his answer or did you just let it go? Since the comment upset you so much, I strongly suspect that the truth is that you didn\'t ask.

Whether you chose not to pose this question because you don\'t wish to get on his bad side as he is a big poobah in your area, simply didn\'t think of the case play during your conversation, or for some other reason or no particular reason at all doesn\'t really matter.

If you didn\'t ask about it and are unwilling to, then just say so. It\'s no big deal. Since you were kind enough to post an email for Howard on the forum, perhaps I\'ll just ask him myself and then post the response. :eek: Afterall, his personal affection doesn\'t matter to me. I\'m only concerned with learning the truth about how the NFHS wants this play officiated.

Iow, you find offensive anyone who disagrees with <b>you</b>, Junior. :rolleyes:

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

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/respect.gif

Have you contacted your own state interpreter yet, Junior? On both the roll-over and double-dribble threads?

When you do, please direct them to the appropriate threads so that he can get all total viewpoints before answering. Please let us know his response....and how we may contact him also to ask further questions.

Wow!!!

Someone has a big inflated ego about their opinion on officiating. I did not realize I had to do everything to what Nevada wants or thinks. Thank you for letting me know this way of thinking.

Peace

Something about the pot and the kettle comes to mind...:rolleyes: