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

NFHS
Sitch: Rebound tapped around, which results in a scrum in the lane. No pushing, legal contact, etc. A1 gains control of the ball with both knees on the ground and lifts one knee off the ground to make a pass. The other knee is still in contact with the ground. I'm not sure if 4.44.5D applies because the starting position is ONE knee on the ground... My intuition tells me that lifting the knee in any similar situation is a violation. What do you say?

Pack A Bag ...
 

If said player gets up, or attempts to get up, it a traveling violation.

4-44: 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 ... After gaining control while on the floor and touching with other than hand or foot, may not attempt to get up or stand.

Of course, said player can legally pass the ball, shoot the ball, start a dribble and get up, or request a timeout.

I'd say it depends.

If the knee lifts a little in the act of passing, I'd say it is legal.

If they lift the knee so much that they put the accompanying foot on the floor before passing, I'd call that an attempt to get up and a violation.

As mentioned in the Case Book play, 4.44.5 D, if the player holding the ball is kneeling on one knee, and then attempts to stand - which would indicate lifting that one knee from touching the floor, thus standing on both feet - it is a travel. I see the action of kneeling on both knees, and lifting one knee, as still kneeling, which is consistent with the Case Book play. And because the player is still kneeling, I don't consider that going from two knees to one is an "attempt to stand." "Standing" must be defined as two feet touching the floor and neither knee touching the floor.
This seems consistent with other rules, such as an airborne player catching a pass from out-of-bounds, or a tip from a jumpball, or a defensive player intercepting a pass and then landing with his/her feet stradling the division line, being allowed to land with either foot first in either frontcourt or backcourt, without a violation. The logic is that a bipedal human is allowed to land on both feet, in such situations, because "standing" is always considered to be on both feet.
In previous discussions of this topic, we haven't arrived at a consensus, and probably won't do so this time around.

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.

I've thought about this for some time and believe that I have finally arrived at a reasonable and practical solution to this traveling issue.

Ask yourself what is the point at which a player standing with the ball travels by going to the floor? The rule tells us it is when he touches the floor with something other than a hand or foot. So that is our point of violation.

Now if you reverse the situation for the player on the floor who gains possession and ask when is it that he rises or attempts to get up, you will have the point of violation for this situation. My answer is when any body part other than a hand or foot breaks contact with the floor because putting such down BY RULE takes him out of a legal standing position, so picking such up must be the first part in the act of attempting to get up. Note that I am not merely rewinding video of a player falling to the floor and using the exact opposite moment of the travel as the point of getting up because as Camron comments fully getting up isn't required in order to violate, only attempting to get up is. Therefore, we must consider what a holistic act of rising would entail and deduce the initial part.

The only caveat to this is that the traveling rule specifically permits a player on his back to sit up, so that action must not be considered as attempting to get up and a violation.

Sounds like something worth pre-gaming every game. :rolleyes:

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.

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...

Not travelling in the NCAA rule set.

Judgment in NFHS.

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

That is a terrible reason to call a travel.

A1 gains control of the ball with both knees

Sounds like a kicking violation to me. You probably meant "A1 gains control of the ball while both knees are on the ground..."

Yes, this.