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

[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.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

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

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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