Roll over = travel

[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"?

[Jurassic Referee]

The clarification in both the NFHS and NCAA case books say that it's a violation for a player on the floor holding the ball to roll over. It doesn't say it's a violation for them to roll to their side. And if you're not sure what "over" means, ask your rules interpreter. Well, that might not be good advice for bainsey.....

Paralysis through analysis.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The clarification in both the NFHS and NCAA case books say that it's a violation for a player on the floor holding the ball to roll over. It doesn't say it's a violation for them to roll to their side. And if you're not sure what "over" means, ask your rules interpreter. Well, that might not be good advice for bainsey.....

Paralysis through analysis.

I agree. OVER is the key word. To me from one side to the other does not constitute OVER. I need to see the torso flip.

This is certainly a gray area, but I feel that too many officials over-penalize the hustling player with a violation here. Reward the kid who gets to the ball first and allow him to make a play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is certainly a gray area, but I feel that too many officials over-penalize the hustling player with a violation here. Reward the kid who gets to the ball first and allow him to make a play.

So we let the kid roll over on his side to get away from the defender who's trying to get the ball? Yep, makes sense, let's penalize the defender.


Traveling every time for me.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It doesn't say it's a violation for them to roll to their side.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So we let the kid roll over on his side to get away from the defender who's trying to get the ball? Yep, makes sense, let's penalize the defender....Traveling every time for me.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is certainly a gray area...

I believe this illustrates my point.