Roll over = travel
 

I've always found the passage about rolling over with the ball (NFHS 4.44.5) to be a bit vague. At what point does a roll become a travel?

Certainly, you're not going to allow a player to do a 360 or even a 180 while holding the ball. Still, is there a point where a lean becomes a slight roll or a travel? Where do you draw the line?

Rocking around a bit is not rolling...and not traveling. How far is too far? Well, tumbling in the process of diving for the ball and coming to a stop, even if that tumble involves a rotation of 360 degrees or more, is not traveling. But, if the turn not part of the dive/tumble but is to protect the ball from being taken by the opponent, even 90 degrees is enough for me to call a travel. If they're on their back and roll to their side to protect the ball...travel. There are no hard limits on how far is too far. You just have to see it and judge whether their actions fit the spirit of the rule.

If they're sitting on the floor with the ball and they "rock" from side to side, it's not a travel. If the opposing coach complains, tell him the player didn't move his pivot cheek. :cool:

Please don't tell them this, then when they grow up to be a real coach, they'll start using the term "pivot cheek" when complaining about travel calls.

+1

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

Screen name: Pivot Cheek
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:


Traveling every time for me.

So if a player secures a loose ball lying flat on his back and lifts his left shoulder blade and left butt cheek off the floor to pass to a teammate, that is "rolling over" and you're going to call a travel?

I'm with Nevada on this one.

I believe this illustrates my point.

Seriously? That's what you get from that post? Wow.

I'm just doing what people do on this board all the time: Infer things from a post that the author may or may not have meant.

In all seriousness, I don't agree with how BktBallRef interprets this rule. I believe "roll over" means to roll over to your other side, whether it be your front or back. If I'm on my back with the ball and I end up on my side momentarily to pass to a teammate or request a timeout, I would consider that a "lean" or a "twist", not a "roll over".

If a player shifts form one stable position to a different stable position, they have rolled over. I consider stable positions to be back, stomach, right side, and left side. If they're in between, the get to settle to one of the stable positions. But once they settle, I do not permit them to change. That doesn't mean they can't rock around as they continue to "play", but they can't change to a "new" position.

I consider back and stomach to be the stable positions. Afaik the intent and purpose of the rule is that it's a violation to roll over from one position to the other while holding the ball. That's rolling over. I've never seen or heard of an interpretation anywhere that said it's illegal to roll side to side while you're holding the ball on either your back or stomach.

Sounds like the only way to really settle this one is to get a FED clarification on it.

90 Degrees, 180 Degrees, 360 Degrees ???
 

Don't make me whip out my protractor.

Make room for me!
 

#1, lifting the shoulder has nothing to do with it. He can sit up if he chooses to.

#2, If he rolls over on his side, it's traveling. Nowhere did you read that I said it was traveling to lift a butt cheek. Please don't make things up. You lose cedibility, if you have any.

Let's examine the Case Play
 

I've never seen or heard of an interpretation anywhere that said it's LEGAL to roll side to side while you're holding the ball on either your back or stomach.

4.44.5 SITUATION B: A1 dives for a loose ball and slides after gaining control. A1 is in a position either on his/her back or stomach. What can A1 do without violating?

RULING: A1 may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a time-out. Once A1 has the ball and is no longer sliding, he/she may not roll over. If flat on his/her back, A1 may sit up without violating. Any attempt to get to the feet is traveling unless A1 is dribbling. It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is first to touch the ball.

What can A1 not do?
He/she may not roll over.

What can A1 do?
If flat on his/her back, A1 may sit up.

So the case play tells us that the ONLY thing A1 can do while holding the ball in this position is to sit up if he/she is on her back.

There's nothing that says A1 can roll over on his/her side if A1 is on his/her back or stomach.

Traveling.
Jurassic siding with NevadaRef. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/roflmao.gif

Well, tomorrow is the first Winter Solstice Full Moon Eclipse in at least 370 years (450 according to some sources.)

Will that be the 2nd one witnessed by MTD Sr?

Depends on which of those sources is correct.

1) Yup, I agree that the player can't roll over without traveling. I'm already on record as saying that.

2) There's nothing there either that says A1 can't roll onto their side. Rolling onto their side isn't rolling over imo. If you roll over from your back, you end up on your stomach. Conversely, if you roll over from your stomach, you end up on your back. You're adding something that is not definitively laid out in the case play.

Here endeth the lesson. :)

We disagree. And until the FED gives us a clarification, I guess we'll still be disagreeing.

And for the record, I agree with Nevada most of the time. :eek: I think he's a very knowledgable official. It's only when he gets carried away with some of his strict law'n'order stuff that I really have to disagree with him. Vehemently. But that's also only my opinion. Hell, fwiw Jeff Rutledge and I have been fighting over some things for 10 years now and if I'm lucky we'll spend another 10 years fighting over 'em, but I still very much agree with and respect the great majority of his answers. Don't tell him that though. Takes all the fun out of arguing. :D

4.44.5 SITUATION B:
What can A1 do without violating?

RULING:
A1 may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a time-out.
If flat on his/her back, A1 may sit up without violating.

Those are the FED's words, not mine. I don't know how it could be any clearer. Those are the only two things the case play says A1 can do.

Oh well...nothing to get bent out of shape over. Merry Christmas Woddy! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ages/santa.gif

It's takes a helluva lot more than that to get me bent out of shape, Tony. :D

Have a great Christmas! You gonna spatchcock your turkey?

Hey! That's illegal in most states!!:eek:

49 of them, in fact. New Jersey is the lone exception.

Oh yea...I forgot all about Hackensack. :p

If I lift my left shoulder and left butt cheek off the floor, I'm not lying flat on my back anymore, so that would be rolling onto my side, would it not?

The bolded part is your opinion of course.

I explained to someone else in my next post that I was being somewhat sarcastic, but the point still holds true. I'm not making things up. If you lay flat on your back and start to roll to your right by lifting your left shoulder and left butt cheek off the floor, you're going to be on your side rather quickly.

I don't need you to determine if I have credibility or not. There is no way to know by a message board if people are credible or not. I imagine there are some pretty subpar officials who post on here all the time who are held in high esteem, and some very good officials who hardly ever post on here.

Rules citation?

Hey, Martha Stewart does it all the time. And she never went to the Big House for that. Other things? Well, yeah....but it doesn't make her a bad person. And she did knit new handcuffs for all the screws while she was there.

It's the only way to go imo. I do it all the time. Out in public too- right on my bbq for anyone to see.

How to Spatchcock a Turkey - Martha Stewart Recipes

Cooking is my life!

Dan and I will always have Hackensack.....

OoooooH. No wonder my wife started yelling at me for putting the bird in back of my rear tire before throwing it into reverse.....

Not unless your side is on your right butt cheek. It is not that difficult for an average person to tell if someone is on their side or back.

If they were to relax, where would their body settle...to the back or to the side. That should give you the answer.

Do we detect a little lust in this post?

For Martha Stewart or the turkey? :confused:


<font size = -5>if you can tell them apart.....</font>

Soooooo......

A player on their back who rolls on their side during the act of passing the ball to a teammate should be called for traveling if their side hits before the ball is released?

This thread is one of the many reasons why I love the basketball forum.

And on a now related note, if he rolls onto Martha or the turkey, that's just wrong.

Your premise is that they've rolled.

We don't excuse a travel just because a player is trying to pass to ball but doesn't release it until just after the pivot foot lands.

Why would we in this case?

Nope, my premise is that they didn't roll over. Iow I don't think that's traveling by rule. You do.

And therein lies the rub...

I explained to someone else in my next post that I was being somewhat sarcastic, but the point still holds true. I'm not making things up. If you lay flat on your back and start to roll to your right by lifting your left shoulder and left butt cheek off the floor, you're going to be on your side rather quickly.

I can lie on my back and lift my shoulder all day without rolling over on my side.

Read the case play that I posted and under the ruling where it says what the player is ALLOWED to do, show me where it says he can roll over on his side.

I'm addressing credibility on this board, not on the basketball floor. Any credibility you might have had with me, you lost with your fanboy posts concerning NFL officials on the Football forum.

On to my Ignore list you go.

A menage a trois turkeys? :eek:

If that's anything like frying one, YES. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ges/eating.gif

Without A Dream In My Heart, Without A Love Of My Own ...
 

But it's not a Blue Moon.

That's How I Became An IAABO Official ...
 

Don't stare at it. You'll go blind.

I'm not sure whether spatchcocking a turkey before frying would make any difference. Spatchcocking is just taking out the turkey's backbone and flattening the bird before cooking. It cuts the cooking time by about 2/3 for roasting or BBQing. We tried it for the first time last Christmas and were amazed at how quickly the bird cooked. My wife roasts the bigger ones (over 20 lbs.) in the oven and I like to BBQ smaller turkeys every now and then. Never really tried to fry one but I can't see how spatchcocking would help in that case. Do you use a turkey fryer or just a large stock pot?

I use a propane turkey fryer with a large deep pot. Heat the peanut oil to 300 F. Drop the turkey, which is placed on a stand. Takes about 3 mins. per pound. Including heating up the oil, I can cook one in about 75 minutes.

You can use a marinade injector to inject garlic butter or some other type of marinade to make it very moist and juicy. I can best compare a fried turkey to a rotisserie chicken. But it's not greasy at all and the skin is crispier.

You brought it up.

I told my Mom I'd stop when I needed glasses.

Actually, a blue moon is the 4th full moon to occur in a seasonal quarter. Not, the 2nd full moon in a calendar month. I believe the full moon arrives before the change of season, which WOULD make it a blue moon. I am not going to get up to watch the eclipse though, because as a dues paying IAABO member, I have that covered.

Rule reference?

I stand corrected. It is the 3rd full moon when there are four in a season. Here is a definition I found:
The older definition, which is recorded in early issues of the Maine Farmer's Almanac, states that the blue moon is the third full moon in a season that has four full moons. The full Moon on Nov. 21, 2010, was this type of blue moon; it was the third of four full moons between the fall equinox and the winter solstice. Why would one want to identify the third full moon in a season of four full moons? The answer is complex, and has to do with the Christian ecclesiastical calendar.

Some years have an extra full moon—13 instead of 12. Since the identity of the moons was important in the ecclesiastical calendar (the Paschal Moon, for example, used to be crucial for determining the date of Easter), a year with a 13th moon skewed the calendar, since there were names for only 12 moons. By identifying the extra, 13th moon as a blue moon, the ecclesiastical calendar was able to stay on track.


Read more: Blue Moons: myths, facts, history, and dates — Infoplease.com Blue Moons: myths, facts, history, and dates &mdash; Infoplease.com