|
Unfortunately, it does not. I believe that 4.43.3A(b) is describing very different action. It is purely a problem of diction. Here's the best way I can explain it:
That Case Book play uses the words, "touches the ball." I understand this to be different from contacting the ball in a forceful manner such that it prevents the release of a pass or a try.
Merely touching the ball could be a very light tap or a brush of the ball after the shooter has left the floor, but is still on the way up. Placing a hand squarely on the ball and applying significant pressure at the apex of the jump is certainly different from this.
Officials must understand the language of 4.43.3A in the way that I have just outlined. Otherwise, there would be a real problem with part (c) because one would not know whether to call a held ball or a travel. Here are the exact words for both:
4.43.3A(c) A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and touches the ball and A1 returns to the floor holding the ball. Ruling: In (c), a traveling violation.
4-25-2 A held ball occurs when an opponent places his/her hand(s) on the ball and prevents an airborne player from throwing the ball or releasing it on a try for goal.
So if A1 with the ball jumps into the air and B1 then hits the ball with a hand after which A1 returns to the floor holding the ball, under the auspices of which rule does this play fall? Is it a held ball or a travel?
Do you now see how these rules would provide conflicting calls, if you considered the touch of the ball in 4.43.3A to be just the same as the contact with the ball that prevents the release in 4-25-2? It seems that an official must make the difficult judgment as to what contact prevents the release of a ball and what touch does not.
My point is therefore that officials cannot consider those same words "touches the ball," which are also used in part (b), to mean the same thing as the action which is being described in 4-25-2. I believe the rules committee had two totally different plays in mind when it wrote each of these.
Therefore, since one was not intended to provide a ruling on the other, and vice-versa, it would be incorrect to make the argument that we should be considering both rules when making a call on this play. One of them simply wasn't ever intended to apply to this particular play. I believe that one is 4.43.3A(b).
It is unfortunate for us that the English language can be so vague and imprecise, but we must deal with it. This happens to be one of those cases where the words chosen to describe a play in writing do not clearly convey a single image to minds of various officials. We simply see different things in our heads when we read these words, and since we are all not envisioning the same action on the court, this leads to substantial confusion.
|