NF 4-44-5 Traveling

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I just know as I move up the ladder calling those 50/50, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, violations does not serve me well. If you have to get into a debate about the intricacies of such a call then let it go. If he is obviously getting up, then go get it.

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...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I just know as I move up the ladder calling those 50/50, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, violations does not serve me well. If you have to get into a debate about the intricacies of such a call then let it go. If he is obviously getting up, then go get it.

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

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

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...

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

+1

Thats the reason why I would wait & see if a knee to foot is an truly an attempt to get up or just an attempt to get off that sore knee. I believe there is a difference. Afterall, whenever I attempt to get up, I always wind up in a standing position on my feet.

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?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

[BktBallRef]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tref

Perhaps the player has a scar on their knee or an injury to their knee.

I generally allow them to get up before blowing instead of making interpretations about what the player was trying to accomplish.

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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

That's the NFHS interpretation

Where's that written?

[tref]

Originally Posted by smitty

where's that written?

ikr

[Rob1968]

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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

But, as evidenced by the entries on this thread, so far, there's no reference that would define the issue.......

I find it curious that we haven't been able to quote a recognized source - NFHS, IAABO, etc,

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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