Sub State Finish
 

From what I understand, this happened in Tennessee this week.

A Technical was called on #44 black after the TO from the trail official with 1.5 ticks left in a tie-game. You can see #44 say something to the closet official, yet the call was not made by him or the other you see in the frame at around :50 seconds in. From what I read (granted 90% was from ticked off parents on another forum), the closest two refs did not hear what was said and supposedly the trail official's explanation was he read his lips and says #44 gave him the old silent "F-u" after he walked past. That explanation was "hear-say" as well considering the sources.

My question is this, once this got past all the race cards being thrown around and whether or not a game of this magnitude should have ended in this manner, the argument now has gone the direction as to whether or not the barrel role after the loose ball was a travel or not.

A lot to comment on here, yet I couldn't think of a better place to get a true definition as to why or why not this was traveling on the floor.

I don't even know where this is and I don't think it's been posted on here, so I am not involved or have any thing to do with any of this. Just respect you guys opinion and have gotten a lot of answers on here before.

Bradley Central vs. Blackman Substate Controversial Technical Foul - YouTube

No to the "is it a travel" question?

Looks like momentum to me, imo.

The rule says that rolling OVER is a travelling violation. I don't consider side-to-butt roll as rolling over.

Just for clarification, if side to butt is not a roll what is?

Stomach to back & vice versa... we cant expect a player to freeze on their side after going for a loose ball on the floor, can we?
But if an explanation is needed the easy out is, "coach in my opinion he didnt have control of the ball until his momentum carried him onto his butt."

Explain the race card comment?

Tref,

Yes, we can.The player clearly gained control while prone and set up. According to 4-44-5 After gaining control while on the floor and touching with other than hand or foot, may not attempt to get up or stand.

So by the player rolling from side to sitting would be considered a violation.

Again, rolling is legal. Rolling OVER is a travel.

ah, i don't see the relation. Please provide a specific rule to support this.

I guess there's a difference between CAN and SHOULD. One question - what part of rolling from side to sitting are you including in "attempt to get up or stand"?

The whole forum debate took an ugly turn when the video surfaced. Prior to that, it was just about "what a shame" that such a good game had to end like that and a lot of arguing over whether the trail heard something or read lips, etc.

Once the video came out, it went straight to the "all-white vs. all-black" teams with 2 white and 1 black ref with the 1 being the one that made the call at the end.

Unfortunate turn of events...then the thread was shut down and rightfully so.

Sorry for being vague yet didn't want to expound too much on the issue. Last few discussions were about the travel-non travel issue. I should have left that comment out I guess.

As I understand it, If one is touching the floor with anything other than hand or foot. The options are to either call a time, shoot, pass or start a dribble from that specific position.

In that case, "attempt to get up"

Case 4.44.5 B.

Just like the key word in the kicking rule is intentional, the key word in the travel rule is role OVER.

4.44.5 Situation B assists with the Intent & Purpose of the rule.

You can also....
 

If you are on your back, you can bend at the waist to an upright sitting position and that is not considered getting up.