The Official Forum - Scrum in lane, control gained with two knees on the ground...

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Scrum in lane, control gained with two knees on the ground... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/99908-scrum-lane-control-gained-two-knees-ground.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 964458)

Not really. Don't confuse specific cases with general principles.

These are examples of what is traveling. It is not the threshold of what it takes to travel.

The rule itself is quite clear....movement of the feet beyond what is listed as legal is traveling. Thus, lifting one knee and putting that food on the floor is traveling since there is nothing that says it is legal.

Lifting the knee alone, to me, is not yet traveling. However, going from two knees to one knee and one foot is foot movement that is beyond what the rules declare to be allowed and is thus traveling.

Cameron, all statements in Rule 4 are based on the general principle that the game is played by players in a standing or erect position. 4-44-5 a, b deal with a player whose posture changes from that attitude.

For the posture of a player standing erect, and securing or maintaining possession of the ball, with its varied aspects - standing on two feet, running, jumping, starting, stopping - the limits of foot/feet movements are somewhat covered in 4-44-5. And there are several Case Book plays that address specific applications of 4-44-1 thru 4.

Indeed, without the statement of Case Book play 4.44.5 D, one might read 4-44-2 b. as allowing a player who has secured possession of the ball while one knee is touching the floor, and the other foot is also touching the floor, to have performed a legal movement:

4-44-2 "A player who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop, and establish a pivot foot as follows: b. If one foot is on the floor: 1. It is the pivot when the other foot touches in a step." However, as stated above, that rule deals with a player in an erect posture.

Unfortunately, "securing possession of the ball while touching the floor with both knees" is omitted in the Case Book play under current discussion. In that posture, the threshold has sufficiently changed, so as to elicit a speciflc ruling/Case Book play.

The principle of using Case Book plays to express the limitations of the Rules, in regards to specific actions, is inherent to the process of defining the parameters of rules applications. It is not uncommon that a Case Book statement ignores interpretation of a similar although sufficiently diverse situation.

In some instances, one may lean to the general principle that "if it isn't illegal, it must be legal." And in other instances, one may adhere to the general principle that "if it isn't legal, it must be illegal."

Many of the valuable discussions on this forum are the product of that process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 964469)

Not really. Rule 4-44, the traveling rule, doesn't assume that. It explicitly covers a player holding the ball while on the floor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 964469)

In some instances, one may lean to the general principle that "if it isn't illegal, it must be legal." And in other instances, one may adhere to the general principle that "if it isn't legal, it must be illegal."

Without a case or a rule saying it is legal, it must be illegal in the case of traveling since it, unlike other rules, lists the legal options and prescribes all the rest to be traveling.

Case plays, in general and specifically in this area, are not listing all the cases that are traveling. They're just describing some of the examples of what is traveling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 964458)

N
Lifting the knee alone, to me, is not yet traveling. However, going from two knees to one knee and one foot is foot movement that is beyond what the rules declare to be allowed and is thus traveling.

FWIW, this is the general standard I use on these plays.

I do recognize the arguments of both sides that allow more and allow less movement than this. And, like lots of other discussions we've had in the past, it won't be settled until FED / NCAA comes out with a case play / AR on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 964474)

Bob, your ability to be succinct is only surpassed by the wisdom of your comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 964439)

Sometimes we have to adjudicate intent.

In judging whether a player committed a violation or not? :confused:

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 964449)

(I greatly appreciate the Smile :) as it indicates that this is just an exercise in off-season friendly rhetoric.)

Noting that all discussion of the Case Book plays is in regards to Rule 4-44-5:

The Case Book play 4.44.5 SIT D: starts with the player securing possession of the ball while kneeling on one knee. The language of the Case Book play accepts the action of lifting that one knee to be an attempt to stand, that is, on both feet.

This is consistent with the generally accepted definition of kneeling, as having either or both knees touching the floor; and with the definition of standing, as having both feet touching the floor, or one foot touching the floor and the other suspended in the air or touching an object above the floor. (See Rule 4-44-2 a 1.)

The Case Book play does not address actions prior to the player coming to the position of kneeling on one knee. It does not address how the player arrived at the position of kneeling on one knee. In fact, the Case Book play cannot address any such actions, because the Ruling involves the player having possession of the ball.

If the player starts in a position of kneeling on both knees, and then secures possession of the ball, upon lifting one knee, the player is still defined as kneeling, and has only arrived at the starting position noted in the Case Book play. And as stated in the Case Book play, an "attempt to stand" has not yet started, and a violation is still not applied to an action prior to the attempt to stand.

Case Book plays 4.44.5 SIT A and 4.44.5 SIT C address actions prior to the actions noted in Case Book play 4.44.5 D. Those actions include A) falling to the floor while holding the ball, and C) dropping to the floor with one "a" 'knee while dribbling.

In Case Book play 4.44.5 SIT B the phrase "Any attempt to get to the feet is traveling unless A1 is dribbling." Upon noting that the word "feet" is plural, and that a person kneeling on one knee is considered to be kneeling and not standing, one may logically consider movement from a position of kneeling on two knees to kneeling on one knee is not an "attempt to get to the feet" (plural).

Indeed, the writer(s) of Case Book play 4.44.5 SIT D chose to address neither the issue of a player securing possession of the ball while kneeling on both knees, nor the action of that player changing from both knees touching the floor, to one knee touching the floor. The issue addressed is narrow, and the lifting of the one knee of the player, while holding the ball, must be defined as an "attempt to stand," because only one knee is touching the floor.

As noted in a previoss post - not mine - NCAA does not consider the player going from a position of both knees touching the floor, to a position of one knee touching the floor to be a travelling violation. The NFHS wording of the Case Book plays leaves that issue unaddressed.

Some NFHS officials choose to apply the Case Book plays to that issue. I do not choose to do so.:)

Don't really care what the NCAA considers. The NFHS rules addresses the issue.

Again, kneel on both knees. Now, get up without lifting a knee.

I'm done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 964615)

In judging whether a player committed a violation or not? :confused:

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

In a few cases, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 964616)

Don't really care what the NCAA considers. The NFHS rules addresses the issue.

Again, kneel on both knees. Now, get up without lifting a knee.

I'm done.

As Bob noted, a Case Book play with the player securing position of the ball with both knees touching the floor, may be helpful.
That the NCAA apparently recognizes that, is only to be noted as evidence that the two starting positions can be considered as divergent.

My exhaustive explanation of the generally accepted differences of "kneeling - whether on one or both knees - and standing - whether on one or both feet" addresses your second point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 964634)

Can't have a case book play for everything. It would be thousands of pages and no one would ever read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 964634)

My exhaustive explanation of the generally accepted differences of "kneeling - whether on one or both knees - and standing - whether on one or both feet" addresses your second point.

In your mind, perhaps. Not in mine.

We can agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1968 (Post 964634)

If you have the play in your game and don't call a travel, the game will move on and nobody will say a thing afterwards. I wouldn't exhaust myself trying to convince others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 964645)

If you have the play in your game and don't call a travel, the game will move on and nobody will say a thing afterwards. I wouldn't exhaust myself trying to convince others.

If you call an over-the-back or reaching foul, few people will say anything either but that doesn't make it right.

The travel rules are actually pretty clear. If it isn't listed as legal, it is a travel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 964647)

That is some people's interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 964650)

That is some people's interpretation.

It isn't an interpretation...it is explicitly stated in black and white in the rule book.

Quote:

Traveling is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball. The limits on foot movements are as follows:...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 964652)

It isn't an interpretation...it is explicitly stated in black and white in the rule book.

If is so explicitly spelled out why do you have to use words like "basically" and "translation" to spell out your reading of the rule? Explicitly means it is spelled out in black and white and you can point directly to it.

The prescribed limits are as follows:

A player who catches the ball with both feet on the floor, may pivot, using either foot. When one foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot.
Not violated by this situation

A player, who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop, and establish a pivot foot as follows:
Doesn't apply to this situation

After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:

a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

b. If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

c. The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a *dribble.
Not violated by this situation

After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot:

a. One or both feet may be lifted, but may not be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

b. Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.
Not violated by this situation

A player holding the ball:

a. May not touch the floor with a knee or any other part of the body other than hand or foot.

b. After gaining control while on the floor and touching with other than hand or foot, may not attempt to get up or stand.
Applies to this situation. "Attempt to get up or stand" is explicitly" spelled out as going from one knee to a standing position in the case book. Anything else is INTERPRETATION.

4.44.5D could easily have been written as "one or both knees", but instead they specifically said "one knee".