What a way to start the season!
 

Last night was the first game of the season for MTD, Jr. (aka MTDv2.0), and I. It was a MichiganHSAA (in that State up North) assignment: Boys' JrHS DH between to Class D schools and the Home School was less than ten miles from our home.

Our pre-game start as soon as I back out of the driveway (Civil/Highway Engineering joke: Why do we park our cars on driveways and drive our cars on parkways?), but I digress. First thing Mark says is: "Dad, it is a boys' JrHS game, lets have fun, no technical fouls or ejections."

FIRST GAME (7th grade game), the Visitors win in a blow out. No problems, except V-10 (has a Mohawk hair cut) enters the game in the second quarter and does not play ten seconds when he has to be helped off the court after he injures his LEFT knee; late in the third quarter he re-enters the game and again does not play ten seconds when he injures his RIGHT knee and has to be helped off the court and does not play again.


SECOND GAME (8th grade game), the Visitors win in a blow out. BUT!!!

Home-HC has been chipping all game long about our interpretation of the Traveling Rule. Unfortunately, Mark and has been bearing the brunt of the whining because he always seems to be Table Side whenever I make or don't make a traveling call that H-HC does not like. H-HC when he complains, never crosses the "magic line" that will earn him a TF. UNTILL!!

The Visitors have the ball in their Front Court with less than twenty seconds left in the third quarter and I am Opposite-the-Table when a rebound starts bouncing around off every player on the court. Finally the ball bounces off the a player's leg toward the Division Line. V-1 dives toward the ball and slides and rolls approximately ten to twelve feet before coming to a stop. H-HC starts whining for traveling. V-1 passes the ball to V-2 who passes the ball to H-1 and the teams start up court toward Team H's basket. As Mark moves up the court H-HC enters the court, now vehemently complaining about my lack of traveling call. WHACK!! By Mark. There is less that ten seconds left in the third quarter.

As Mark reports the TF I inform H-HC that he as lost the use of the Coaching Box. Mark goes to the Division Line opposite the Scorer's Table while I administer the TF FTs; after V-3 attempts them I pass the ball to Mark and before he can place the ball at the disposal of the Team V's thrower, H-HC comes out onto the court to continue his complaint about my lack of making a travel call and also he doesn't want to remain seated. WHACK!! By me.

Surprisingly, he turned away from me and left as soon as I made the TF signal. Neither I nor Mark had to tell him he had to leave. After the game, the AD came to us before we even left the court to apologize for his coach's actions, so all was good from that stand point.

On the way home, Mark apologized for jinxing us in our pre-game but still would not buy dinner (I always buy the post-game dinner no matter what) because I was the one that ejected the coach not him, LOL. Therefore I had to right the game report even though he was the R in the game.

Like I said: "What a way to start the season!"

MTD, Sr.

Look at it this way: What else can go wrong for the rest of the season??? :D

(yeah, I know...that was mean to jinx you like that but I couldn't resist)

So Derrick Rose has a mohawk now?

So, how was your Big Mac? :rolleyes:

This...I legit laughed out loud. :D

First scrimmage last night - GV. Late in 3rd Qtr, B1 guarding A1 holding the ball above the top of the key. I'm C near the A1 bench. T picks up the closely guarded count. B1 moves within 2 feet, hands waiving and straight up being a general pain in the a$$. A1 doesn't handle it well and takes a forearm and just pushes B1 off. TWEEEET! My P calls the foul.

A1 looks at her coach and says, "She was in my space!" Nice!

Great start to the season! ;)

Ugh.

This sounds like a girls MS doubleheader I had last month, aside from the techs and ejection. It must be a Michigan thing. :D

My first MS boys doubleheader is next week. I can only hope mine isn't nearly as eventful as yours. ;)

I trust your judgement Mark, but this sounds like a travel to me.

Okay, maybe six to eight feet. I was not wearing my glasses. And why would it be traveling if the sliding and rolling is because of the player's momentum from diving for the ball?

MTD, Sr.

Mark:

I edited my OP. Mark, Jr., still would not buy dinner. And we ate at Burger King. I got the Italian Chicken sandwich meal.

MTD, Sr.

I had to go read the entire story to get this joke. I was also laughing kind of hard on this one too.

Peace

That's a joke about not wearing ur glasses, right? lol.

Anyway, explain the rolling part. You say sliding and rolling. Were there multiple rolls (i.e., rolling)? I think that's what AremRed is getting at. Multiple rolls sounds like a travel.

Why would it? If it was an aggressive dive for a lose ball, I could see a player tumbling more than once.

Mark never mentioned when the player gathered the ball or if the player rolled over again after the sliding was done.

It does not matter when the player gained control of the ball nor does it matter what his body and body parts do while the player is moving do to the momentum of his drive. Once the player's momentum is spent and he comes to a stop then the traveling rule governs the player's movements.

MTD, Sr.

Kindly cite a rules reference for FED or NCAA that provides for such an outcome where the actions are clearly and specifically the result of momentum.

Matters not one iota. 'Gather' nor player control are part of this particular equation whose only meaningful element is momentum and the effects thereof. Stop overthinking these situations. It gives the appearance you lack basic rules knowledge.

Rollin', Rollin', Rollin' On The River ...
 

Sliding, I get. Multiple rolls? I would like this to be investigated further.

nfhs:

ncaa:

Actually, it does. The timing of player control is absolutely relevant. If they don't have player control, there is no travel. If the player "gathers" before they land on the floor, it is a travel the instant they hit the floor. If they "gather" after being on the floor they are then allowed to slide/roll as far as momentum takes them.

Rock 'N Roll Is Here To Stay ...
 

Got any citations for the "roll" part of your statement? I know that he can't roll over after he stops sliding, but how about some rule, or casebook play, that states he can roll due to momentum.

The casebook only talks about sliding.

4.44.5 situation b: A1 dives for a loose ball and slides after gaining control. A1 is in a position either on his/her back or stomach. What can a1 do without violating? Ruling: A1 may pass, shoot, start a dribble or call a time-out. Once a1 has the ball and is no longer sliding, he/she may not roll over. If flat on his/her back, a1 may sit up without violating. Any attempt to get to the feet is traveling unless a1 is dribbling. It is also traveling if a1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is first to touch the ball. (4-44-5b).

I'm not sure myself, so I would like some verification.

Yep...right in the case quoted...
It says that they can not roll over once they stop sliding....implying they can roll over before that. Otherwise, they wouldn't have qualified the restriction on rolling to apply to the time after they stop sliding.

Also, the case mentions a player diving and ending up on their back or stomach. I have never seen a person dive for something and end up on their back without rolling over to some degree.

Ok.

Exactly, but I'll admit a lot of officials (myself included) would be hard pressed not to call a travel when a player is rolling around with possession while sliding....we all know how kindly coaches take to an obscure case book ruling when they see what looks like a clear violation. They don't understand ugly ≠ violation.

Are you going to refrain from making other 'obscure' calls like backcourt, basket interference, illegal screen, or closely guarded when defenders switch, etc., all because you're concerned how coaches are gonna take it?
As to most coaches, they're all obscure rules. For us, they should all be top of mind as none of the rules are printed with disappearing ink in a secret section of the Rules or Case book.

Nope.

Implication ...
 

You're probably right, but I still have a problem with relying on an implication as part of your citation.

Also, regarding the rollover after sliding, we've been told (no citations, sorry) for over thirty years that this had nothing to do with momentum, but rather, with gaining an advantage not afforded by the rules by rolling over and trying to keep the ball away from defenders.

I have had no problem holding my whistle for a sliding player, but, to be honest, I would be hard pressed not to sound my whistle for a rolling player, especially since the casebook play (the only citation that I can find for this situation) specifies sliding, not rolling.

If I allow rolling in a big play, at the end of the game, at the end of the season, with playoff implications, I would have a hard time defending myself to a coach, athletic director, my partner, or my assigner, with a caseplay book in their hands.

Maybe someone can come up with an old caseplay, and settle this, probably in your favor.

Another Look At the Videotape ...
 

This post gave me pause to think.

Are we talking about a player who is simultaneously sliding, and rolling, due to momentum?

Or are we talking about a player who's momentum is causing him to simply roll without sliding?

I might have a legal play in the former, but a travel in the later.

How's that sound?

Yes, I cant go as far as to say because drafters say you can't do it when the slide ends you can do it before. Argument could be made, which Billy is making, that this case play says "slide" and that's what it addresses. Literal interpretation.

Could also say drafters knew about rolling cause addressed it After momentum stopped. If they wanted player be able to roll during momentum they could have said so. Like they do in NCAA. I couldn't cite this case play to support allowing rolling in a high school game. Imo

After further review I don't think rolling due to momentum is involved in any way in this play because the play tells us to assume A1 has the ball and is SLIDING.
Then asks "what can he do without violating?" The entire assumption involved is that the player is holding the ball sliding on his back or stomach. What can he do?

Answer: shoot, pass, dribble timeout. It then says in a sort of "by the way fashion". When stopped sliding he can sit up but not roll. They are just telling us what A1 can and can't do once he stops SLIDING. I don't feel by that statement they are saying/implying he can roll over while sliding. (It is not one of the four things mentioned) thx

I also don't think it rules out the roll caused by momentum. It just isn't addressed because the whole play assumes only a slide. Thx

This is a case play, not a rule. Read it for concepts. They're telling us they want players to go after a loose ball. Again, the qualification about what they can do after they stop sliding IS indirectly a statement on what then can do before they stop sliding. They're drawing a distinction between the TYPES of things allowed due to the momentum of the dive and deliberate movement that is not part of the dive.

Thx for the reply Cameron. I get the concepts, encourage hustle, we allow player to slide should also allow rolls that are due to momentum. College play spells it out clearly. I agree with it and think it's better case play interpretation rule etc.

I just disagree that this play makes it clear under NFHS and that because it says you can't roll once stop sliding you can infer player could before he stopped. For reasons stated earlier. Thx again for replying.

Direct ???
 

Thats the problem for me, I would prefer a direct statement.

The rule states nothing. The casebook only talks about a slide.

Camron Rust may be right, but it's not due to the citations quoted. I need more information before I will allow a player possessing a ball to roll around on the floor after chasing down a loose ball. I may even let him slide and roll simultaneously, but I can't allow him to just roll.

The casebook play tells me me to allow him to slide, but anything else is simply conjecture at this point.

It would be cost prohibitive to print and distribute a 4,879 page rule book and 5,192 page casebook.

Golly gee willarkers!!
 

I started this thread to let everybody know that what was supposed to be an easy start to the season turned into a game report for an disqualified and ejected coach. While everybody here knows how much I love to debate rules and interpretations this was supposed to be a light hearted humorous thread.

MTD, Sr.

Hey, you're the one that started it out by saying an 8th grader generated enough momentum to be sliding AND rolling 10-12 feet. :)

Like you said, he probably dove, grabbed the ball and slid on his back for 6-8 feet and passed the ball. No Travel. Good call.

Just didn't come across that way.

Ready, Aim ...
 

"Don't shoot the messenger" is not the same as, "Shoot the controversial thread starter".

(Note: Excellent thread. Thanks Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.)

One And Done ...
 

How about one of those annual interpretations, à la Nevadaref?

*ha ha MTD: just goes to show that unintended outcomes often result from the most simple of issues. Keep on posting tho, we luv it.

Exactly What We Were Discussing ...
 

I like the call. I feel he rolled over not due to his momentum but by choice. I have a hard time envisioning anyone rolling multiple due to their own momentum.

Just saw a reference to an old post where the question of momentum/sliding/rolling was addressed. The question was posed to the NFHS and Mary Struckoff provided the following answer:

(Reference: https://forum.officiating.com/507253-post68.html)

Straight From The Horse's Mouth ...
 

Great citation Camron Rust. Thanks. Hopefully we can remember this the next time we have a debate/discussion/argument about rolling. It will save us a lot of time.