NF 4-44-5 Traveling

[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.

[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.

[walt]

Originally Posted by 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.

+!

Travel, travel, travel every time.