Why call traveling? It's the NBE.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Question for those who think pinning the ball to the floor is not holding it: A1 dives for a loose ball, pinning it to the floor with one arm. B2 comes in and simultaneously pins it to the floor with one arm. Do you have a held ball here?

It is not necessary for a player to be holding the ball in order to have a held ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is not necessary for a player to be holding the ball in order to have a held ball.

Good point, just re-read the def of held ball.
The rest of my post still stands. Are you suggesting that the rules committee wants the player to be able to stand while pinning it to the floor but not while releasing it ?

This seems to be to be the epitome of "advantage not intended by the rules."

Pinning it either has to be holding it or setting it on the floor. Either way, by rule, it's illegal (in this context).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Pinning it either has to be holding it or setting it on the floor.

Disagree. The key is control. If we say he never held the ball, (this is certainly debatable) everything is all right. If he dove on the floor, touched the ball, and it rolled away, he would certainly be able to get up and do whatever.
I don't see this play as being any different.

[BillyMac]

YouTube - Rajon Rondo Hustle Dive For Ball vs Orlando Magic - 2010 Playoffs

I also saw the multiple replays on ESPN. Since I only use NFHS rules in all of my games, I immediately thought legal, or illegal, and how would I have called that in my high school game, in real time?

First replay: Illegal, based on the classic 4.44.5 SITUATION B interpretation.

Second replay: Wait minute? He's not holding the ball. The ball is pinned against the floor. Also Rondo did not "put the ball on the floor, rise, and (be the) first to touch the ball". The ball was already on the floor, and he was not the first to touch after standing, he was touching it the whole, entire time. Maybe this is a legal play? "When in doubt, don't be" has been drilled into my head by both Forum members, and by the powers that be in my local board. Since I'm not really 100% sure here, after further review of the replays, I'm voting NFHS legal.

Now, from a strictly rulebook interpretation, I welcome Forum members to please try to convince me otherwise.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Now, from a strictly rulebook interpretation, I welcome Forum members to please try to convince me otherwise.

There's only one possible way to definitively come up with the right answer. Have a poll.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There's only one possible way to definitively come up with the right answer. Have a poll.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There's only one possible way to definitively come up with the right answer. Have a poll.

Or maybe hit somebody with a pole.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Disagree. The key is control. If we say he never held the ball, (this is certainly debatable) everything is all right. If he dove on the floor, touched the ball, and it rolled away, he would certainly be able to get up and do whatever.
I don't see this play as being any different.

But the ball didn't roll away. He had complete and total control to the point where I would have granted a timeout while it was pinned.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But the ball didn't roll away. He had complete and total control to the point where I would have granted a timeout while it was pinned.

I agree, but with that being said it is not clearly listed this is control to where a travel is concerned. Then again that is why I said earlier that I m not convinced this is technically illegal. It sounds like a play that was never considered by the NF (or NCAA that I am aware of) for legality.

Peace

[Judtech]

I'm with SNAQdiesel and would have called a travel based on the spirit of the rule!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree, but with that being said it is not clearly listed this is control to where a travel is concerned. Then again that is why I said earlier that I m not convinced this is technically illegal. It sounds like a play that was never considered by the NF (or NCAA that I am aware of) for legality.

Peace

I can't disagree with this, but this is where, to me, the purpose and intent of the rules comes into play. The NFHS wants it called a travel when a player holds the ball and stands up. They want it called a travel even when a player stands completely lets go and lets the ball sit next to him while he stands. I can't imagine they want to allow a player to stand because he found a loophole somewhere between letting go and holding it, both of which they want called a travel.

[Adam]

I said nothing about the spirit of the rule, so perhaps your reading comprehension could use a little work.

"Intent and purpose" are, however, mentioned in the actual rule book.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I can't disagree with this, but this is where, to me, the purpose and intent of the rules comes into play. The NFHS wants it called a travel when a player holds the ball and stands up. They want it called a travel even when a player stands completely lets go and lets the ball sit next to him while he stands. I can't imagine they want to allow a player to stand because he found a loophole somewhere between letting go and holding it, both of which they want called a travel.

Yes, but he was not "holding" the ball. The ball was on the floor. I do not consider that holding. But then again you can say he had some control possibly of the ball. I probably at first glance would have passed on this play. I do think the NF needs to clarify this if they want a travel called. I do not like to make travel calls simply because it looked funny.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, but he was not "holding" the ball. The ball was on the floor. I do not consider that holding. But then again you can say he had some control possibly of the ball. I probably at first glance would have passed on this play. I do think the NF needs to clarify this if they want a travel called. I do not like to make travel calls simply because it looked funny.

Peace

Watching it in full speed the first time, I would have whistled it. Here's how I see the rule.

1. NFHS wants it called travel when the player is holding the ball and stands up.

2. NFHS wants it called travel when a player sets the ball down then gets up.

3. When a player does something that, for all intents and purposes, falls right in the middle of 1 and 2, I can't imagine they want that allowed.

I do think they need to clarify this, or define "holding" to include pinning the ball to the floor. It could also have ramifications for team control issues.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I said nothing about the spirit of the rule, so perhaps your reading comprehension could use a little work.

"Intent and purpose" are, however, mentioned in the actual rule book.

BLUE FONT!!!