Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Read my posts.
I would never do this is a real game.
Why not?
Because since the removal of the change of status rule forty years ago tens of thousands of officials have continued to call it as is we still had the change of status rule, despite the fact that imperfect rule language says otherwise.
Purpose and intent, even forty year old purpose and intent, and possibly "tradition", trumps imperfect rule language.
|
Or, maybe because it's not the rule.
Team Control continues until .... An opponent secures control.
If B placing the hands on the ball means B has control, the A no longer has control. And, if B placing the hands on the ball means B has control, you can't have a held ball, because there was no "indue roughness."
So, B cannot have control by this action (alone).
If A requests TO before you judge that "undue roughness" will occur, grant the TO. Or, if you judge the "undue roughness" before the TO request then call the held ball. The second is the better choice in most circumstances (that is, unless A quickly removes the ball from B's grasp, or the TO request is VERY VERY early in the sequenc.)