Bingo! Too many times WE make the "gotcha" call & then have to rewind it several times (if we even do filmwork) to justify the call. Patience...

+1, Yep or any other agreement I can think of.

Peace

Too many times we avoid making close/tough calls because we're afraid of catching heat over them.

Most times it is spitting hairs about whether a player did something or not and I'm fine with staying out of those.....such as a travel call when the dribble release and foot movement were really close in time.

In this case, a clear change of position is hard to dispute. From two knees to a foot and a knee is hard to dispute. You can say it isn't part of getting up but if it isn't, why is the player doing it...it gives them a more advantageous stance from which to make a play.

Do you wait for a shooter to release a shot (or even make a shot) before you consider it a shot? An attempt doesn't have to be successful to be an attempt?

If he wants to lift the knee slightly, that will get him off a sore knee...but he doesn't need to get to a foot to accomplish that.

Do you let players travel who have a sore ankle?

Pivoting gives a player a more advantageous position as well. That's legal. I just have a hard time saying without a doubt that moving from two knees to one is an attempt to get up, unless their next move is to get up. The rule isn't clear enough. Maybe your interpretation is clear to you. But it isn't to me. And others - which kind of makes it disputable. That's a problem in the rule.

This one is certainly more ambiguous than faking a foul, I'll grant you that.

My opinion comes from the fact that it is a violation to contact the ground with any part of the body other than a hand or foot while holding the ball. I see that breaking contact with the ground of the same situation as the attempt to get up....aside from the permitted act of sitting up.

He doesn't have to get up to travel.

He has to ATTEMPT to get up.

He didn't need to go from his knee to foot to make a pass. Going from knee to foot is is an attempt, whether he actually gets up or not.

That's the NFHS interpretation, not anyone that posts here.


It amazes me some of the things that are debated here sometimes.

Their and them indicates more than one player. You want his/her and him/her.

Just trying to help as we haven't heard much from Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy recently.

Where's that written?

ikr

Addendum
 

In the OP, I was about to make the traveling call, and then realized that the intent of the player was not to "get up or stand". The coach wouldn't let it go, and because we have a good relationship, I told him I'd look for some official interp. But, as evidenced by the entries on this thread, so far, there's no reference that would define the issue.
I really don't care which way an official interp may go. I find it curious that we haven't been able to quote a recognized source - NFHS, IAABO, etc, other than the practiced, well respected opinions of our colleagues, which do carry some weight and value.
As stated by several posters, the ambiguity may be the real point.

That's because the rules makers feel that officials should have enough sense to know that this is a violation. ( they're right ;) )

If they had to document every potentital scenario in the book, then they'd be still printing the First Edition.

If a player is on his knees and then shifts his position, placing a foot on the floor, this is a normal progression of events toward standing, even if it was not the player's intent to do so. This is a violation every time.

Yeahbut...what if he lifts his leg, but doesn't put his foot on the floor? He just sort of waves his foot in the air, thus faking that he is attempting to stand. Do we call the travel violation, or do we T him, or do we simply freeze with indecision because we - although we are averagely intelligent - cannot figure out what the hell the kid is doing? :p

Agree ...
 

... and every time in my games, also.