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.

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.

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.

I mean, I couldn't believe it! There I was, sipping my scotch, when all of a sudden.....oh, hey BadNewsRef! What was that you said? Oh yeah, I agree, that should absolutely be pre-gamed every assignment. Right after the trail-center on-ball coverage conversation. Unique travels that occur most frequently in middle school girls games are a "gotta have" talking point in every pre-game. Glad to see we're on the same page here. :p

See ya' tomorrow or sometime this weekend. I'll be one of the tall skinny caucasian refs if you want to say hello. :D

I'll be there Friday.

The point is that if you know your rules, you'll be able to call whatever does happen when it happens and not have to make something up, even if you're good at making stuff up.

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?

NFHS Rule 11-1 ...
 

And then there was the travelling call I witnessed, on a player holding the ball while sitting on his buttocks . . .(as explained to me at halftime by the calling official) - "He changed from one butt cheek to the other" . . .

Sermon On The Mount ...
 

There are two Internet rules, Godwin's Law and the inevitability of an Officiating.com forum discussion on traveling bringing up the "pivot cheek".

If A1 still has control of the ball at the instant the knee is no longer in contact with the floor a traveling violation has occurred.

MTD, Sr.

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. ;)

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.

(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.:)

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.

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

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.

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

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

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.

In a few cases, yes.

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.

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

In your mind, perhaps. Not in mine.

We can agree to disagree.

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.

That is some people's interpretation.

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".

I used those words to try to explain it to those who don't want to see it.

It says the allowed foot movements are listed and anything other foot movement is a travel.

Do you see anywhere that where it says a player can move from two knees to one foot?

No. Therefore, it is a travel.

None of the limits of foot movements prescribed in 4-44-1/2/3/4 are violated. 4-44-5 only states what a player may not do. 4-44-5b applies to this situation. Other than going from one knee to 2 feet, "Attempt to get up" is open to interpretation.

But the only interpretation that matters is that of the official.

"In my judgement s/he was attempting to get up."

I agree with Cam......

The travel rule is unlike most other rules. Instead of listing what is illegal (making unlisted items legal) it lists all the legal options for foot movement. Any foot movement not listed is illegal. And it doesn't qualify it by the starting position.

Show me where it says they can move to one foot. If you can't, it is, by rule, illegal.

Art 5b is there to say that it is legal to be on the floor when they obtain possession otherwise, Art. 5a would make it a violation to even grab the ball while on the floor. It does say they can not get up.

Regardless of how you interpret "Get Up", the restrictions on what foot movements are legal from the rest of the rule don't go away. If the player puts a foot on the floor on any way other than what is listed in Art 1-4, they have done so in a way that is not listed making it a travel.

I have no problem with that. My point is that it is an interpretation, not an explicitly written rule.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk