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.

tref,

I seen the rule and the casebook play.

I observed the video again and I am man enough to say. The granting of the time out was correct by the official. The player in white was practically sitting on his buttocks when he requested the time out.

rwest,

I am aware of that. Thanks for poking me in the eye even more. ;)

Are you saying when a player is lying on the floor, sitting up would be a violation?

Check out the wording in case play 4.44.5 Sit B.

Seems like I type slower than others.

truerookie - I wasn't meaning to pile on, or twist that stick. :)

I am saying if a player has gain control while on his/her stomach and attempt to sit up that would be considered a violation. However, if the player is on his/her back and gain control they can sit up.

Wrong, he didn't attempt to get up, he sat up which is legal.

I know. All these discussion does for me is to ensure I stay active in the rule/casebook and not totally rely on my memory. I do have C.R.S you know.:p

Big time,

It is not legal if you are going from stomach to sitting.

Gosh, that would be rolling over

Or extremely painful, time to get a sub in. You calling a travel or getting the meds in to have this kid taken out on a stretcher?

haha :D

Ah, ok.

The only disagreement we may have regarding the original play, is when did the player actually gain control of the ball, and when did the player stop sliding? The wording in 4.44.5 Sit B says, "Once A1 has the ball and is no longer sliding, he/she may not roll over." I see the initial "roll" as part of the attempt to gain control, and thus would consider that part of the slide (or as others have mentioned - momentum). Once the player stops that initial momentum, then they cannot roll over.

I wouldn't have called a travel, especially from the L, because the player's back was to the L at the beginning of the attempt to control the ball, and there's no way the L could see when control was obtained. However, once the player ended up on their back, and sat up, the TO was properly granted.

This was the exchange between tref and myself.

tref,

I seen the rule and the casebook play.

I observed the video again and I am man enough to say. The granting of the time out was correct by the official. The player in white was practically sitting on his buttocks when he requested the time out.
__________________

Wheres the like button at? :D

Well, if I would read the whole thread and not type so slow, I would've seen that.

I'm going back to the kitchen and make another batch of cookies.

Carry on. :D

Yet, not everyone agrees with what "over" means. Some insist that it mean from full stomach to full back. Some insist that it means from one body surface to another with the side being a different surface than the back or front. (I'm in the latter camp).

What Goes Around, Comes Around ...
 

Cam, I respect that... I interpret "roll over" like when one cooks eggs or pancakes, from one side to the other.
Over means over, to me.

I'm in this camp as well. If you go over a fence, you go all the way to the other side. If you flip a burger over on the grill, it is on the complete opposite side. Just how I interpret it.

It's True ...
 

Did you hear about the cow that tried to jump over the barbed wire fence?

Udderly destroyed.