An army may travel on it's stomach...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

A1 dives to retrieve the loose ball, slides briefly, and comes to rest on his stomach. As B1 approaches to attempt to grab the ball, A1 turns away from him about 1/4 of a turn, then calls TO. He did not move in any direction, just turned.


Why shouldn't a player lying on his stomach be allowed to do the same, within the restrictions imposed for a prone player by the same rule (well, by 4.44.5 B anyway)?

Your thoughts?

The case play that you cited above states that it's a violation if A1 rolls over. It doesn't say "attempt to roll over". Iow it is a judgment call but imo the player in your scenario above did not roll over. He may have started to but he certainly didn't finish doing so. Ergo, if the player doesn't roll over, there is no traveling violation.

And somewhere there's a similar thread on this from the last few months iirc.

[BillyMac]

... Nevaderef.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And somewhere there's a similar thread on this from the last few months.

[bearclause]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The case play that you cited above states that it's a violation if A1 rolls over. It doesn't say "attempt to roll over". Iow it is a judgment call but imo the player in your scenario above did not roll over. He may have started to but he certainly didn't finish doing so. Ergo, if the player doesn't roll over, there is no traveling violation.

And somewhere there's a similar thread on this from the last few months iirc.

Even I know that the definition of traveling involves the feet moving in excess of prescribed limits. If the feet never touch the ground (no pivot foot established), it's not traveling. I think we've all seen stomach slides where the player secured the ball and kept both feet off the ground to avoid the traveling call.

I'd be curious how he managed that 1/4 spin. If he pushed off with the arm/hand and the feet are off the ground, then I don't think it's traveling. If he pushed off with one foot, I'd be curious what the ruling should be. If he drags the feet, I think it's pretty obvious it's traveling.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bearclause

Even I know that the definition of traveling involves the feet moving in excess of prescribed limits. If the feet never touch the ground (no pivot foot established), it's not traveling. I think we've all seen stomach slides where the player secured the ball and kept both feet off the ground to avoid the traveling call.

A player lying on the floor has no pivot foot; it's not relevant to the play due to the rules. Traveling is normally about the pivot foot; except when the player is on the floor.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bearclause

Even I know that the definition of traveling involves the feet moving in excess of prescribed limits. If the feet never touch the ground (no pivot foot established), it's not traveling. I think we've all seen stomach slides where the player secured the ball and kept both feet off the ground to avoid the traveling call.

I'd be curious how he managed that 1/4 spin. If he pushed off with the arm/hand and the feet are off the ground, then I don't think it's traveling. If he pushed off with one foot, I'd be curious what the ruling should be. If he drags the feet, I think it's pretty obvious it's traveling.

If a player gains control of the ball while on the floor, a foot simply touching the floor would not be relevant.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If a player gains control of the ball while on the floor, a foot simply touching the floor would not be relevant.

Yep, and a player could travel, after getting the ball while standing, without ever moving his pivot foot.

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep, and a player could travel, after getting the ball while standing, without ever moving his pivot foot.

Reminds me of an old movie "Falling Down"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bearclause

Even I know that the definition of traveling involves the feet moving in excess of prescribed limits. If the feet never touch the ground (no pivot foot established), it's not traveling. I think we've all seen stomach slides where the player secured the ball and kept both feet off the ground to avoid the traveling call.

I'd be curious how he managed that 1/4 spin. If he pushed off with the arm/hand and the feet are off the ground, then I don't think it's traveling. If he pushed off with one foot, I'd be curious what the ruling should be. If he drags the feet, I think it's pretty obvious it's traveling.

If a player gains possession of the ball while sliding, he does not have a pivot foot per se. Touching the floor with a foot/feet while sliding or after completing the slide is not considered as being traveling. What they are restricted from doing while lying on the floor after coming to a stop is rolling over or attempting to get up or stand(unless they start a dribble first). If they are lying flat on their back, they can legally sit-up.

Iow, forget about the pivot foot when you have a player on the floor holding the ball. Again, that player is OK unless he/she tries to roll over or get to their feet while holding the ball. That's what you're looking for.

NFHS rule 4-44-5(b) and case book play 4.44.5SitB.

[bearclause]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If a player gains possession of the ball while sliding, he does not have a pivot foot per se. Touching the floor with a foot/feet while sliding or after completing the slide is not considered as being traveling. What they are restricted from doing while lying on the floor after coming to a stop is rolling over or attempting to get up or stand(unless they start a dribble first). If they are lying flat on their back, they can legally sit-up.

Iow, forget about the pivot foot when you have a player on the floor holding the ball. Again, that player is OK unless he/she tries to roll over or get to their feet while holding the ball. That's what you're looking for.

NFHS rule 4-44-5(b) and case book play 4.44.5SitB.

I'm just going with what I have available to me, since the NFHS decided to require membership to access their online rulebooks. I thought that a lot of things are predicated on a certain set of conditions, but where approved rulings have made certain actions create some assumptions that make things easier on the official. An example would be that it was once legal to block a shot that had hit the backboard as long as it was still on the way up. I understand that it's now automatically considered a goaltend situation if blocked after hitting the backboard. I know it's very hard to tell.

Here's NCAA Approved Ruling 117, which mentioned pivot feet a lot. They use the term "virtually impossible". I can think of some way that it could go down that it is possible, but I guess they like to make things easier by assuming that certain actions mean that the pivot foot has been lifted.

A.R. 117. Is it traveling when a player:

(1) Falls to the playing court while holding the ball without
maintaining a pivot foot; or
(2) Falls to the playing court on both knees while holding the
ball without maintaining a pivot foot; or
(3) Gains control of the ball while on the playing court and
then, because of momentum, rolls or slides, after which the
player passes or starts a dribble before getting to his or her feet?

RULING: (1) and (2) Yes, when the pivot foot is not maintained because
it is virtually impossible not to move the pivot foot when falling to the
playing floor.
(3) No. The player may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a timeout. Once
the player has the ball and is no longer sliding, he or she may not roll over.
When flat on his or her back, the player may sit up without violating.
When the player puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is the first to
touch the ball, it also is traveling. When a player rises to his or her feet
while holding the ball, it is traveling. When a player falls to one knee
while holding the ball, it is traveling if the pivot foot moves.
(Rule 4-70.6 and 4-70.1)

I suppose you're right about the feet being allowed to be on the ground during a slide. I think we've all seen a few video clips of players getting control of a ball during a stomach slide, then crashing into a camera and taking out the video.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bearclause

Here's NCAA Approved Ruling 117, which mentioned pivot feet a lot. They use the term "virtually impossible". I can think of some way that it could go down that it is possible, but I guess they like to make things easier by assuming that certain actions mean that the pivot foot has been lifted.


A.R. 117. Is it traveling when a player:
(3) Gains control of the ball while on the playing court and then, because of momentum, rolls or slides, after which the player passes or starts a dribble before getting to his or her feet?

(3) RULING: No. The player may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a timeout. Once the player has the ball and is no longer sliding, he or she may not roll over. When flat on his or her back, the player may sit up without violating. When the player puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is the first to touch the ball, it also is traveling. When a player rises to his or her feet while holding the ball, it is traveling.
(Rule 4-70.6 and 4-70.1)

#3 above is the play being discussed. Note that I also removed everything from AR117 that is irrelevant to the situation being discussed. Also note that there is now NO mention of a pivot foot to be found anywhere.

Again, forget about a pivot foot when a player is lying on the floor holding the ball. Just follow the NCAA AR above (which is exactly the same as NFHS direction).