What's The Correct Call ???

[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.)

[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 and personalizing while avoiding the points of the actual argument? You're basically admitting you're wrong when you do that. Stick to the point, if you can.

You said you can't travel without holding the ball. Case plays were cited that prove you wrong (it may be the general case, but there are exceptions).

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.)

I'm pretty sure that if I had said it was legal, you would have taken the other side just to argue.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

I'm pretty sure that if I had said it was legal, you would have taken the other side just to argue.

I don't believe I've called you any names yet. I've just let your very own words do all the talking. You get awfully excited when all that really happened was someone quoting your exact words.

And I think that I'll just leave it at that. There's no need for me to discuss anything further with you. There's no upside for either of us.