[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

I have not seen a convincing argument for the held ball vs out of bounds. Still unsure about the correct ruling but still leaning toward out of bounds. To dispute some of the points above for held ball.

The player must land before blowing the wistle for jump ball. Case 4.25.2 supports this. Common sense also supports this. Try blowing the whistle for a jump ball on the touch for block and then the offensive player while still airborne pumps and makes the shot. You call jump and see what your evaluator or assignor thinks of that call. good luck!!

I agree with the timing on this call. I think most officials would. Although, I'm not entirely sure why. If the defender clearly prevents the release of the ball, but the offensive player is able to "play through" this and still get a shot off ... we have no whistle. I'm not sure what rule basis there is for this. But it's the norm. Perhaps it has to do with once the shooter returns to the floor with the ball, then we're forced to make a call? So we apply that timing to all such calls? But clearly the judgment about whether the defender really prevented the release, or whether the shooter could have gotten a shot off and was only intimidated or distracted by the contact on the ball, that judgment is clearly formed based on the activity that happens before the shooter returns to the floor.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

Traveling -
Player lifts pivot foot and dribbles the ball out of bounds. I call out of bounds. Nothing in rules or case refer to whether this is traveling or oob so a case could be made either way but an oob call will be the easier call to sell.

Player jumps in the air and lands out of bounds. I call out of bounds not traveling.

A major difference here is that in both cases the same player has committed both violations. The traveling came first, but OOB is the obvious call. But the result is the same, so nobody cares which one you call.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

Another argument for the out of bounds call, case 4.23.3a - 'player called for blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.' My argument is that the defensive player is out of bounds and therefore can't get the jump ball call using the same reasoning as the legal guarding postion. To call jump ball you would be rewarding a defensive player who is not a legal defender.

Apples and oranges here. Fouls and violations are not the same thing. And, in fact, is held ball is not a violation at all. With a held ball there is no guarding position to consider, legal or otherwise. Another set of rules comes into play if one, or both, players who have held the ball are OOB.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

What if defensive player b1 is standing out of bounds and never jumps and is tall enough to block the shot and player a1 comes down with the ball. This is obviously oob. Not like the op but neither are the lifting the pivot foot and dribling in bounds or jumping and landing in bounds with the ball.

Yes, this is clearly OOB. The defender has committed a violation. And since a held ball is not a violation, there is only one violation committed.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

At this point I do not see a clear rules interpretation of this call and I think both arguments are valid but I am leaning toward oob.

The deciding factors for me include 1) The held ball and the oob are two separate plays and clearly one occurs first. 2) If you need proof you need only consider that if the player could have gotten the pass off, there would have been no oob violation. Therefore you have, if not a cause and effect relationship, then at least a clear order of events. 3) Unlike the examples you cite where the same player commits both violations, in this case the defense "committed" the first act, leading to the offense "committing" the second act. This is more like a situation where the defender's push causes the ball handler to travel, or a bump by the defender causes the ball handler to stumble and step on the oob line. In those cases we're clearly expected to either go get the foul and ignore the violation, or to ignore both and play on. But it's always "wrong" to call the violation and ignore the cause. 4) A held ball is not a violation, and the result is not the same as the oob. Which you call matters. "The arrow" can be a very emotional issue with some coaches especially. You "take away the arrow" and you may very well hear about it. From an angry coach, or from an evaluator. And when that moment comes, what will be your clear and compelling reason for not going with the held ball.

Edited to add: In the traveling or oob examples, you've gone with the "expected" call. This is because everybody saw the OOB, but very few if any saw the travel. But what if you went with the travel? You're argument of "the expected call" really is based on people's expected reaction to the call. Even though the travel is not expected, everybody is either going to say, "Huh? Whatever. Same thing." or, "Hmmm, okay. That's right. Same thing, though." Either way, there is widespread acceptance of the call because the outcome is exactly the same as the judgment they made in their own minds.

With this play, even if those watching initially cheer, thinking it was a good defensive play, it won't take long for somebody to say the words "jump ball" and "isn't that like capping the shooter?" Then what? The discussion among those you hoped to pacify by making the "obvious call" will go several different directions at once. The widespread acceptance that it was the right call will disappear. And what saved you on the travel v. oob call, instant recognition that it's the "same thing" isn't there to bail you out. In other words, "upon further review" it's not an easy sell at all. Mostly confusion will remain in the wake of an oob call here.