Roll over = travel

[bainsey]

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?

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[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.

[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."

[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!