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

[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.