Roll over = travel

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Therein lies the problem. We all have our opinions on the "spirit." I believe the smarter thing is to get everyone on the same page.

Not really, for the number of times this happens in a game, just leave it to judgment. There's too many possibilities to start laying down specific rules on which parts of the body can touch the floor.

[Nevadaref]

We had a long discussion on this previously.
I stated then that 180 is the cut-off point. This allows a player to turn from side to side, but not roll over.

I still call it that way and haven't had any problems doing so.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We had a long discussion on this previously.
I stated then that 180 is the cut-off point. This allows a player to turn from side to side, but not roll over.

I still call it that way and haven't had any problems doing so.

Reference? I'd say that rolling from left side to the right side is a travel every time.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Reference? I'd say that rolling from left side to the right side is a travel every time.

Agreed. If he goes from his butt to his hip, I have traveling.

[referee99]

... still available. Make a statement in 2011!

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not really, for the number of times this happens in a game, just leave it to judgment.

It's not the frequency, Snaq. It's the complaint-to-occurence ratio that makes this notable. Yes, it's infrequent, but people (mostly coaches) rightfully complain about this more often per instance than anything I can think of. To me, that's a red flag that not everyone is on the same page.

I don't see anyone rushing to give a clear-cut answer, so I suppose this whole thing will remain clear as dishwater.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It's not the frequency, Snaq. It's the complaint-to-occurence ratio that makes this notable. Yes, it's infrequent, but people (mostly coaches) rightfully complain about this more often per instance than anything I can think of. To me, that's a red flag that not everyone is on the same page.

I don't see anyone rushing to give a clear-cut answer, so I suppose this whole thing will remain clear as dishwater.

Coaches and officials will never be on the same page on this play unless their player is on the favorable end of the call or no call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It's not the frequency, Snaq. It's the complaint-to-occurence ratio that makes this notable. Yes, it's infrequent, but people (mostly coaches) rightfully complain about this more often per instance than anything I can think of. To me, that's a red flag that not everyone is on the same page.

I don't see anyone rushing to give a clear-cut answer, so I suppose this whole thing will remain clear as dishwater.

You can't base it on that. One coach is upset on this regardless of whether you call the travel. Same thing on block/charge calls. Same thing with any close call.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can't base it on that. One coach is upset on this regardless of whether you call the travel. Same thing on block/charge calls. Same thing with any close call.

With one major difference: The rules will back you up on block/charge and most other close calls. From what I can see, there's far more gray area in a "rolling travel."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

With one major difference: The rules will back you up on block/charge and most other close calls. From what I can see, there's far more gray area in a "rolling travel."

You have the same gray area in other calls such as palming, whether a kick is intentional , whether a foul is intentional or flagrant in nature, what comprises unsporting behavior, etc. They're all judgment calls...including when a player with the ball lying on the court rolls over. The rules back us on all of the preceding, tenuous though they may be. We just call them using our best judgment while trying to be consistent. And as for coach complaining, 26 year gap & Snaqs gave you the correct answer on that one imo.

Sometimes you just have to call the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

With one major difference: The rules will back you up on block/charge and most other close calls. From what I can see, there's far more gray area in a "rolling travel."

Not really; there's judgment every time on virtually every call.

My point earlier was there isn't any practical way to make this particular call more black and white.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My point earlier was there isn't any practical way to make this particular call more black and white.

Oh, I don't think there's any question that this area could be written far more clearly.

For example, to use a variation of 4-44-5b, an additional definition of travelling could read, "after gaining control while on the floor and lying on his/her back or torso, may not roll to his/her side." (or vice versa, side to back/torso)

Mind you, I'm not saying the line should be drawn where I wrote it. It just needs to be drawn somewhere, so we're all on the same page. Yes, there's judgment in most everything we do, but at least there are clearly written bases for our judgments. It's these words that help keep us consistent.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

For example, to use a variation of 4-44-5b, an additional definition of travelling could read, "after gaining control while on the floor and lying on his/her back or torso, may not roll to his/her side." (or vice versa, side to back/torso)

And you would have no problem defining when the player was "on his side" as opposed to almost "on his side"?