Palming

[Johnny Ringo]

Definition of palming ....?

[zm1283]

Don't mean to be a smart azz, but don't you have a rule book? Are you not an official?

I'm pretty sure it's called a carrying violation in the book, and it is worded something like "The ball can not come to rest in the player's hand". I don't have my rule book at hand right now.

[JRutledge]

Actually, the rulebook uses both the term "carry" and "palming" in the rulebook under 4-15-4b.

"The dribble ends when the dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands."

Peace

[BillyMac]

Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or dribbles a second time. There is no restriction as to how high a player may bounce the ball, provided the ball does not come to rest in a player’s hand. Steps taken during a dribble are not traveling, including several that are sometimes taken when a high dribble takes place. It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble.

[JPaco54]

I have seen a few calls made when the ball goes over the dribblers head during his dribble and retains it again when the ball returns and is whistled for a carry. No advantage gained, ball did not come to rest therefore no violation. So, there is no limit to how high the ball can be dribbled. I have been screamed at byfans and coaches for not calling a violation.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

I have seen a few calls made when the ball goes over the dribblers head during his dribble and retains it again when the ball returns and is whistled for a carry. No advantage gained, ball did not come to rest therefore no violation. So, there is no limit to how high the ball can be dribbled. I have been screamed at byfans and coaches for not calling a violation.

There is no limit as to how high a player can dribble the ball. There are probably a few inexperienced officials that have made that call only because "it looked funny, therefore something had to be wrong". That's also the reason many fans want that call. But that simply reinforces our belief that fans usually don't know what they're talking about.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Don't mean to be a smart azz, but don't you have a rule book? Are you not an official?

.

If you "don't mean to be a smart a$$", then why did you post that comment? Seems like the only point of it was exactly to BE a smart a$$...not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't lie about not meaning to be whan you really are meaning to be.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

If you "don't mean to be a smart a$$", then why did you post that comment? Seems like the only point of it was exactly to BE a smart a$$...not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't lie about not meaning to be when you really are meaning to be.

Exactly. The idea is to be permitted to wise off without being criticized for it.

Though if there weren't something wrong with it, nobody would try to disown it.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

If you "don't mean to be a smart a$$", then why did you post that comment? Seems like the only point of it was exactly to BE a smart a$$...not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't lie about not meaning to be whan you really are meaning to be.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Exactly. The idea is to be permitted to wise off without being criticized for it.

Though if there weren't something wrong with it, nobody would try to disown it.

Whatever you guys say. I was meaning "Sorry if I sound like a smart azz, because I'm not meaning to be one". I was seriously asking him if he had a rule book where he could look it up.

Carry on with the righteous indignation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Whatever you guys say. I was meaning "Sorry if I sound like a smart azz, because I'm not meaning to be one". I was seriously asking him if he had a rule book where he could look it up.

Carry on with the righteous indignation.

If you are going to make those comments, be right. You were not right about the terminology the rulebook uses.

It does not bother me, just if you are going to be a smart azz, be right when you are being one.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Carry on with the righteous indignation.

Dude - there is no indignation at all, righteous or otherwise. Get used to people being smart-a$$es on this forum. It happens all the time - especially with M&MGuy around!! You just don't have to apologize for it!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Dude - there is no indignation at all, righteous or otherwise. Get used to people being smart-a$$es on this forum. It happens all the time - especially with M&MGuy around!! You just don't have to apologize for it!

Hey, I'm righteously indignant! How the heck did I get dragged into this?!?

Well, ok, now that I'm here...

Johnny has shown to be an official in the past, so zm's question is a fair one. Now, if this was a new poster, or someone who said they were a parent or spectator, or even a coach ( ), then I can see the question being a little on the smart-a$$ side. But I think it's a fair question to ask if someone who is supposedly an official asks a fundamental question.

Ok, I'm done being a smart-a$$. (Until the next time...)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But I think it's a fair question to ask if someone who is supposedly an official asks a fundamental question.

Like "is it a travel to lift up your pivot foot?"

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Like "is it a travel to lift up your pivot foot?"

Shut up.

Btw, it depends.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Shut up.

Btw, it depends.

I am indignant that you told me to "shut up"?