What's The Correct Call ???

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Snaq, are you saying this would be a legal play?

I wouldn't. Even if the rules do not expressly prohibit it, it is an advantage not intended by the rules.

We have at least a few case plays that establish that when a player who is holding the ball deliberately releases the ball such that it is not a dribble, a try, or a pass, they are effectively considered to have been holding the ball the entire time as far as the traveling rules are concerned when they again pick up the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Snaq, are you saying this would be a legal play?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I wouldn't. Even if the rules do not expressly prohibit it, it is an advantage not intended by the rules.

We have at least a few case plays that establish that when a player who is holding the ball deliberately releases the ball such that it is not a dribble, a try, or a pass, they are effectively considered to have been holding the ball the entire time as far as the traveling rules are concerned when they again pick up the ball.

Exactly. The only differences between this and the "sets the ball down" play are that the ball rolls (and who's to say it isn't rolling slightly in the book play) and we're talking pivot foot restrictions rather than getting up.

The difference between my play and Billy's play is that Billy's player loses control and fumbles. If a player lying on the floor fumbles it, he can then get up and retrieve it.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Exactly. The only differences between this and the "sets the ball down" play are that the ball rolls (and who's to say it isn't rolling slightly in the book play) and we're talking pivot foot restrictions rather than getting up.

The difference between my play and Billy's play is that Billy's player loses control and fumbles. If a player lying on the floor fumbles it, he can then get up and retrieve it.

Doesn't this all get easier if we consider a bat along the floor the same as a bat to the floor? After all, both end up with the ball touching the floor.

I understand the thought process of considering "to the floor" as being exclusive of already on the floor but I think if you consider it inclusive it solves several of these plays that clearly aren't intended to be legal but seem to fall through the loophole between traveling and illegal dribbles.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Doesn't this all get easier if we consider a bat along the floor the same as a bat to the floor? After all, both end up with the ball touching the floor.

I understand the thought process of considering "to the floor" as being exclusive of already on the floor but I think if you consider it inclusive it solves several of these plays that clearly aren't intended to be legal but seem to fall through the loophole between traveling and illegal dribbles.

I think that it's a helluva lot easier if you just consider a bat as being a bat without all the extraneous and uneccessary thinking attached. Where a bat ends up is totally irrelevent, rules-wise. Case book play 4.15COMMENT solves these plays when it states that (a) a player is not dribbling during a bat, and (b) a player is not in control during a bat. That's all the info you need to rule on the plays.

Use the rules we have, not what you wish the rules should be.

[jearef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that it's a helluva lot easier if you just consider a bat as being a bat without all the extraneous and uneccessary thinking attached. Where a bat ends up is totally irrelevent, rules-wise. Case book play 4.15COMMENT solves these plays when it states that (a) a player is not dribbling during a bat, and (b) a player is not in control during a bat. That's all the info you need to rule on the plays.

Use the rules we have, not what you wish the rules should be.

Perhaps we have achieved the dreaded "paralysis by (over) analysis"?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that it's a helluva lot easier if you just consider a bat as being a bat without all the extraneous and uneccessary thinking attached. Where a bat ends up is totally irrelevent, rules-wise. Case book play 4.15COMMENT solves these plays when it states that (a) a player is not dribbling during a bat, and (b) a player is not in control during a bat. That's all the info you need to rule on the plays.

Use the rules we have, not what you wish the rules should be.

You're not using the rules we have. The comment says "when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it." We aren't talking about a rebound or a pass.

And players do bat the ball during a dribble. In fact the definition of a dribble is batting the ball to the floor (4-15-1). So I ask again, why are we excluding batting along the floor from batting to the floor?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You're not using the rules we have. The comment says "when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it." We aren't talking about a rebound or a pass.

And players do bat the ball during a dribble. In fact the definition of a dribble is batting the ball to the floor (4-15-1). So I ask again, why are we excluding batting along the floor from batting to the floor?

You have to determine if a bat to the floor is a dribble or not for lots of reasons. IOW, it's not always a dribble. It seems pretty clear that batting the ball "away" from an opponent isn't dribbling, regardless of whether the ball is bouncing or rolling, and regardless of how precisely the player is able to direct the ball.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You have to determine if a bat to the floor is a dribble or not for lots of reasons. IOW, it's not always a dribble. It seems pretty clear that batting the ball "away" from an opponent isn't dribbling, regardless of whether the ball is bouncing or rolling, and regardless of how precisely the player is able to direct the ball.

True, but isn't the primary way we determine if it was a dribble is if the batter (for the lack of a better term) is the next person to touch the ball? I don't know that I agree that batting the ball away from the opponent always means it's not a dribble. It's not like a normal dribble is always batting the ball towards the opponent.

I'm not sold on the idea I putting out here. I just don't think it's been examined enough.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I wouldn't. Even if the rules do not expressly prohibit it, it is an advantage not intended by the rules.

We have at least a few case plays that establish that when a player who is holding the ball deliberately releases the ball such that it is not a dribble, a try, or a pass, they are effectively considered to have been holding the ball the entire time as far as the traveling rules are concerned when they again pick up the ball.

Even if the rules specifically state that you can't travel unless you're actually holding the ball, you'd still call traveling because you think it's an unfair advantage.

Got it.

And good luck with that philosophy. You're gonna need it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Even if the rules specifically state that you can't travel unless you're actually holding the ball, you'd still call traveling because you think it's an unfair advantage.

Got it.

And good luck with that philosophy. You're gonna need it.

Here's the play Camron was ruling on.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me change it slightly, Billy.

A1 has the ball, already having used his dribble. He's being trapped by B1 and B2 in the BC. He reaches down, touching the ball to the floor, and rolls it between B1's legs towards the division line. He then runs around the defenders before the realize what happened (they though they had him trapped) and retrieves the rolling ball before passing to an open teammate.

You're ruling this legal?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Even if the rules specifically state that you can't travel unless you're actually holding the ball, you'd still call traveling because you think it's an unfair advantage.

Got it.

And good luck with that philosophy. You're gonna need it.

You bet I am.

As I said, we have at least TWO case plays that result in traveling when a player is not holding the ball. One is 4.44.5B as cited above and the other is case play (don't have my books with me) where a player tosses the ball from hand to hand (not holding the ball) and the ruling is that it is not a travel as long as the pivot foot doesn't move in the process (implying that it is a travel if the pivot foot does move).

These two cases clearly establish the principle that is desired by the NFHS. Most people should be able to extrapolate a few existing case plays to what happens on the floor without needing a case play for every possible variation. It is called understanding the spirit and intent of the rule and intelligently applying the rules, not blindly following the letter of the rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is called understanding the spirit and intent of the rule and intelligently applying the rules, not blindly following the letter of the rule.

Soooooo.....

You would never agree with someone that said:
1) "The ref was writing his own rules on this one and deserved to be called on it."
2) "In the end I can only hope that OFC1 goes home and opens his rulebook so he doesn't invite that kind of trouble again by BS'ing his way through situations."
3) "OFC1 invited that grief upon himself being so off-base on so many rules."

Got it. Personally you'd always back up an official that thought they understood the spirit and intent of a rule and were intelligently applying the rule, and not just blindly following the letter of the rule. I'm sure that official will be just so happy to hear of your support.

Now I know exactly where you're coming from.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Soooooo.....

You would never agree with someone that said:
1) "The ref was writing his own rules on this one and deserved to be called on it."
2) "In the end I can only hope that OFC1 goes home and opens his rulebook so he doesn't invite that kind of trouble again by BS'ing his way through situations."
3) "OFC1 invited that grief upon himself being so off-base on so many rules."

Got it. Personally you'd always back up an official that thought they understood the spirit and intent of a rule and were intelligently applying the rule, and not just blindly following the letter of the rule. I'm sure that official will be just so happy to hear of your support.

Now I know exactly where you're coming from.

You can't debate the merits of the situation so you go and pull completely unrelated stuff out of the past...Intelligent, very intelligent. Keep showing your true colors.

You've yet to tell me why the two case plays I've referenced where a player NOT holding the ball is called for traveling despite your insistence that it can't be. You're the one off-base and ignoring the precedent that is in black and white in the rule/case book that considers a player to be holding the ball when they deliberately do something to circumvent the travel rule.

In the thread you're pulling that stuff from, the official in question wasn't anywhere close and they weren't unusual situations....he just totally messed up. No one has disputed that....the only issue was the behavior of the coach....which we (including me) all agree was not acceptable and deserved a T. My comments that the official deserved the grief he got also stand....he showed a complete lack of basic rules knowledge and made stuff up with no basis on anything. It wasn't like he was taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Regardless of your desire to back officials blindly, it is possible for both of them to be wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can't debate the merits of the situation so you go and pull completely unrelated stuff out of the past...Intelligent, very intelligent. Keep showing your true colors.

You've yet to tell me why the two case plays I've referenced where a player NOT holding the ball is called for traveling despite your insistence that it can't be. You're the one off-base and ignoring the precedent that is in black and white in the rule/case book that considers a player to be holding the ball when they deliberately do something to circumvent the travel rule.

In the thread you're pulling that stuff from, the official in question wasn't anywhere close and they weren't unusual situations....he just totally messed up. No one has disputed that....the only issue was the behavior of the coach....which we (including me) all agree was not acceptable and deserved a T. My comments that the official deserved the grief he got also stand....he showed a complete lack of basic rules knowledge and made stuff up with no basis on anything. It wasn't like he was taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Regardless of your desire to back officials blindly, it is possible for both of them to be wrong.

Gee, all I did was quote you verbatim, Camron. Are you calling yourself a liar?

I'm glad that you're still so adamant also that any official who screws up some rules deserves all the abuse any coach can give him. I'm glad because I'll never have to work with someone like you.

When another official does it, he has a complete lack of rules knowledge and makes stuff up with no basis for anything. But when you do the exact same thing, you're taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Hey, who cares if your extrapolations go directly against existing rules? Hell, that don't make no nevermind if you're the one doing it instead of some other official, does it?


Yup, I got it.

Your very own words show your true colors very nicely imo, Camron.

'Nuff said.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Gee, all I did was quote you verbatim, Camron. Are you calling yourself a liar?

I'm glad that you're still so adamant also that any official who screws up some rules deserves all the abuse any coach can give him. I'm glad because I'll never have to work with someone like you.

When another official does it, he has a complete lack of rules knowledge and makes stuff up with no basis for anything. But when you do the exact same thing, you're taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Hey, who cares if your extrapolations go directly against existing rules? Hell, that don't make no nevermind if you're the one doing it instead of some other official, does it?


Yup, I got it.

Your very own words show your true colors very nicely imo, Camron.

'Nuff said.

Are you so insecure or incapable of intelligent debate that you have to resort to mudslinging, personalizing, and taking things completely out of context while avoiding the points of the actual argument? You're basically admitting you're wrong when you do that. Grow up and stick to the point.

You said you can't travel without holding the ball.

Now, show me where the cited case plays are wrong.....the ones that end with a ruling of traveling even though the player, just like the play I was responding to, is not holding the ball at the time of the foot movement. Are you really saying the NFHS is wrong?

If you're capable, show my why. (I'm sure you'll dodge the question again and call me some other names.)