Scrum in lane, control gained with two knees on the ground...

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It doesn't required standing to be a violation. With your interpretation, the player could essentially stand completely vertical but without touching the 2nd foot to the floor and be legal. "Get up" is also illegal. I read that to be any change of position that is closer to standing than where they start.

No, I clearly adhere to the portion of the stated rule - "attempts to stand" - as constituting a violation, as stated in the first sentence of my comment.

This rule has two possible actions that are clearly violations:

A) If the player holding the ball is kneeling on both knees, it appears that he/she may maintain a kneeling attitude with one knee still touching the floor. This is consistent with a dictionary concept of kneeling, which may be on one knee or on two. It is also consistent with definitions of "standing." For example, I have never thought that a person "standing on one foot" would include a person "kmeeling on one knee" but also "standing on one foot." If a person is "standing on one foot" the mental image is consistently that of a person in contact with the surface/floor with one foot, but with the other foot in the air, or in a non-basketball sense, with the other foot placed on another object, and not the surface/floor. When either or both knees are touching the surface/floor, it is refered to as "kneeling" rather than "standing."

B) It is possible for a person kneeling on both knees to attempt to stand, by going directly to both feet - a move seen often in dance, martial arts, acrobatics, gymnastics, etc. And, such attempt clearly meets the basketball violation of "attempting to stand."

Thus, as previously noted, in the Case Book play, if the only knee which is in contact with the floor is raised, that action is taking the player from any concept of kneeling to a concept that can only be referred to as standing, thus that action constitutes "an attempt to stand" even before the player contacts the floor with that second foot, and is considered to be in violation of the stated rule.

In contrast, if a player is kneeling on both knees, and raises one knee from contact with the floor, he/she is still kneeling, howbeit on one knee, and as I see it, has come short of an "attempt to stand."

As in so many instances, if a Supervisor were to state that his/her understanding is not exactly as I see it, I'm not married to either concept, in regards to my adjudication of such actions during a game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

In constrast, if a player is kneeling on both knees, and raises one knee from contact with the floor, he/she is still kneeling, howbeit on one foot, and as I see it, has come short of an "attempt to stand."

That is the first phase of the attempt to stand.

Basically, they don't get to improve their position on the floor except for sitting up when lying on their back.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is the first phase of the attempt to stand.

Basically, they don't get to improve their position on the floor except for sitting up when lying on their back.

This is what made me question myself: I'm not sure A1 was attempting to stand. Applying the "improving his position" principle however, makes it clear to me that it was a violation. FWIW, my P called the violation. I laid off because I wasn't sure and we discussed it during a dead ball. He said he called it because it looked funny...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rooster

This is what made me question myself: I'm not sure A1 was attempting to stand. Applying the "improving his position" principle however, makes it clear to me that it was a violation. FWIW, my P called the violation. I laid off because I wasn't sure and we discussed it during a dead ball. He said he called it because it looked funny...

Not travelling in the NCAA rule set.

Judgment in NFHS.

Never seen "improving his position" in the rule book.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Never seen "improving his position" in the rule book.

That's why I used the term "principle." Probably should have used the term "idea."

I think I get what you're saying. I should use rulebook verbiage to explain my rationale.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Rooster

That's why I used the term "principle." Probably should have used the term "idea."

I think I get what you're saying. I should use rulebook verbiage to explain my rationale.

I'd have gone with "A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule" instead of improving his position, but the "idea" is the same in my opinion. Without this concept, is there anything that would stop the player from "walking" on his/her knees without attempting to stand up?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

... is there anything that would stop the player from "walking" on his/her knees without attempting to stand up?

To start a dribble, the ball must be released before the pivot knee is lifted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Never seen "improving his position" in the rule book.

translation: "attempt to get up or stand"

"Traveling is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball."

In the case of traveling rule, the legal actions are enumerated and all other foot movement is illegal. I don't see any place that says a player can move from two knees to one knee and a foot. Therefore, by rule, it is traveling when that foot touched the floor, but not with just lifting the knee.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by Rooster

He said he called it because it looked funny...

That is a terrible reason to call a travel.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

In contrast, if a player is kneeling on both knees, and raises one knee from contact with the floor, he/she is still kneeling, howbeit on one foot, and as I see it, has come short of an "attempt to stand."

There's your problem.

It doesn't matter how you see it. The rule states traveling occurs when the player attempts to get up. When he lifts one knee, he has attempted to get up, whether he stands or not.

Don't believe me? Kneel on both knees. Now, get up without lifting a knee.

[OKREF]

Lifting the knee doesn't necessarily mean an attempt to get up. Sometimes we have to adjudicate intent. If the movement of the knee was simply a byproduct of attempting a pass, then it is nothing. If you judge lifting the knee was an attempt to get up, then it is a traveling violation. At least that is how I would look at it.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Sometimes we have to adjudicate intent.

In judging whether a player committed a violation or not?

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

In judging whether a player committed a violation or not?

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

In a few cases, yes.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There's your problem.

It doesn't matter how you see it. The rule states traveling occurs when the player attempts to get up. When he lifts one knee, he has attempted to get up, whether he stands or not.

Don't believe me? Kneel on both knees. Now, get up without lifting a knee.

(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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

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

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

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.