Four questions

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by sj

Some things creating some arguments.



4) A1 attempts a try near the basket. In a legitimate attempt to block the shot defender B1 misses the ball and slaps the backboard. As a result of the slap the backboard is moving. The ball goes off the glass, hits the moving rim, and bounces out. Ruling?

Lost in the fumble discussion is an interesting point about #4. I agree that in NFHS this is nothing. Many HS coaches think it's BI, and this may be in part because (correct me if I'm wrong) in NCAA it IS BI.

I believe that was an NCAA rule addition about four years ago, no?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Lost in the fumble discussion is an interesting point about #4. I agree that in NFHS this is nothing. Many HS coaches think it's BI, and this may be in part because (correct me if I'm wrong) in NCAA it IS BI.

I believe that was an NCAA rule addition about four years ago, no?

NCAA 9.15.AR2.5
Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within the basket or the backboard and/or is on or in the cylinder.

HS no call, NCAA BI.

I had a BV HS game last year where I was L in a fast break and had this play partner called the T. There was about 3-4 minutes left of a close rivalry game. I didn't think it was a T so I went to him before he reported and asked if he thought it was a block attempt (which I thought it was - ball and block attempt were on the same side of the basket and I thought the player was close to blocking the ball, he did hit the backboard very hard). His reply was "no" so there was nothing else to discuss further IMO. Coach was irate and asked me and I told him we discussed it and we agree that it was not an attempt to block the shot.

I think the backboard is still shaking to this day.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by deecee

I didn't think it was a T so I went to him before he reported and asked if he thought it was a block attempt (which I thought it was - ball and block attempt were on the same side of the basket and I thought the player was close to blocking the ball, he did hit the backboard very hard). His reply was "no" so there was nothing else to discuss further IMO.

Let's change the scenario a bit. Just want to see the right way to handle this:
You approach your partner with your question and his answer is, "Yes, but that doesn't matter," thereby revealing a misinterpretation of the rules.

Do you let him hang with it or try to get him to rescind the T (is that even possible)?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ODog

Let's change the scenario a bit. Just want to see the right way to handle this:
You approach your partner with your question and his answer is, "Yes, but that doesn't matter," thereby revealing a misinterpretation of the rules.

Do you let him hang with it or try to get him to rescind the T (is that even possible)?

I would make my case like hell that the T was in error and it should be an inadvertent whistle. If he wants to stick with the T I am ok with that because it's his decision but I will make it clear that:

1) He will have to deal with the coach(es) regarding the call
2) If I get a call from the assignor or a higher up that I will tell him my side and what was discussed and that the T was entirely his call

IOW I couldn't back an incorrect application of the rule and he can stick his neck out but all the blowback is on him. Realistically some crap will fly on to me too by default but there is only so much I could or can do at that point.

My response to a coach would be "You will have to ask my partner about the T".

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by sj

Some things creating some arguments.

1) A1 jumps to attempt a three-point shot but the ball immediately slips out of his hands and goes backwards and away from the basket. He returns to the floor and takes 2-3 steps to get to the ball where he taps the ball to a teammate. Ruling?

2) A1 jumps to attempt a three-point shot but the ball immediately slips out of his hands and goes backwards and away from the basket. He returns to the floor and takes 2-3 steps to get to the ball where he grabs the ball regaining control. Ruling?

3) A1 jumps and releases the ball on a try. The ball is in the air when A2 shoves B1 and the official blows the whistle. After the whistle is blown the ball goes through the basket. Does the basket count?

4) A1 attempts a try near the basket. In a legitimate attempt to block the shot defender B1 misses the ball and slaps the backboard. As a result of the slap the backboard is moving. The ball goes off the glass, hits the moving rim, and bounces out. Ruling?

Good to hear from you, SJ. Glad to see you're still kicking.

1 & 2 are fumbles. A fumble is an unintentional/accidental act. So for someone to say all the player can do is shoot or pass, those are intentional acts and it doesn't apply to this scenario. Also, if the player had not dribbled prior to jumping, certainly he can dribble.

In 3, since the shot has been released, the basket counts. Only a player control foul causes a shot in flight to become dead.

4 is nothing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Good to hear from you, SJ. Glad to see you're still kicking.

1 & 2 are fumbles. A fumble is an unintentional/accidental act. So for someone to say all the player can do is shoot or pass, those are intentional acts and it doesn't apply to this scenario. Also, if the player had not dribbled prior to jumping, certainly he can dribble.

Lah me. (in memory of Jurassic because he had a particular part in the previous debates on this)

In post #28 of this thread I provided the link to a previous discussion on this very action. That thread includes the correct NFHS ruling, which is traveling. The NFHS does not permit an exception for a fumble in this case as the NCAA does.

The ruling given below is the most recent issued by the NFHS and nothing has come out stating otherwise. You can also find this in our past interps thread.

SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4-43-3a; 9-4)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00) SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4-43-3a; 9-4)

... because that player traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor?

Also, keep in mind, that in SITUATION 1 (above) there is no question as to whether, or not, the ball has been released on a try. It hasn't ("preparing to release", "Instead of releasing"). Several posts in this thread (including posts by yours truly), have questioned whether there was a release, or not. The fact that there was no release in SITUATION 1 simplifies the play.

Still a great citation. Thanks Nevadaref.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Lah me. (in memory of Jurassic because he had a particular part in the previous debates on this)

In post #28 of this thread I provided the link to a previous discussion on this very action. That thread includes the correct NFHS ruling, which is traveling. The NFHS does not permit an exception for a fumble in this case as the NCAA does.

The ruling given below is the most recent issued by the NFHS and nothing has come out stating otherwise. You can also find this in our past interps thread.

SUPPLEMENT #1 (11/9/00)
SITUATION 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. RULING: Traveling violation. While airborne the bail must be released for a try or pass. (4-43-3a; 9-4)

I choose to agree with those that say this is not a violation. If you intentionally allow the ball to drop, as stated in this play, you didn't fumble it.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... because that player traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor?

A fumble is not a dribble.

4.15 COMMENT:

It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble. A player is not dribbling while slapping the ball during a jump, when a pass rebounds from his/her hand, when he/she fumbles, or when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it. The player is not in control under these conditions. It is a dribble when a player stands still and bounces the ball. It is not a dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I choose to agree with those that say this is not a violation. If you intentionally allow the ball to drop, as stated in this play, you didn't fumble it.




A fumble is not a dribble.

4.15 COMMENT:

It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble. A player is not dribbling while slapping the ball during a jump, when a pass rebounds from his/her hand, when he/she fumbles, or when he/she bats a rebound or pass away from other players who are attempting to get it. The player is not in control under these conditions. It is a dribble when a player stands still and bounces the ball. It is not a dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

The play says the player FUMBLES the ball. That word it not ambiguous at all. How did you get intentionally drops from FUMBLES?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by deecee

The play says the player FUMBLES the ball. That word it not ambiguous at all. How did you get intentionally drops from FUMBLES?

The play that Nevada cites, which has never made its way to a casebook, says the player "fumbles AND DROPS" the ball. The argument is that the player fumbled the ball, controlled it again AND dropped it. In order to "drop" something you have to have it. They could have simply said player "fumbles the ball and then goes and retrieves." They didn't. They said "and drops." Those 2 words mean something.

Frankly, as I said earlier, there isn't any logical reason to treat a fumble different when player goes up to shoot. I believe "accidental loss of player control" is what matters. If accident, let them retrieve it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

The play says the player FUMBLES the ball. That word it not ambiguous at all. How did you get intentionally drops from FUMBLES?

I don't think he intended to say that. I believe he is saying that for it to be a travel, if you go by the rule, the player would have to intentionally release the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think he intended to say that. I believe he is saying that for it to be a travel, if you go by the rule, the player would have to intentionally release the ball.

That's what he was saying, and I don't see how his point was at all ambiguous.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The play that Nevada cites, which has never made its way to a casebook, says the player "fumbles AND DROPS" the ball. The argument is that the player fumbled the ball, controlled it again AND dropped it. In order to "drop" something you have to have it. They could have simply said player "fumbles the ball and then goes and retrieves." They didn't. They said "and drops." Those 2 words mean something.

Frankly, as I said earlier, there isn't any logical reason to treat a fumble different when player goes up to shoot. I believe "accidental loss of player control" is what matters. If accident, let them retrieve it.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think he intended to say that. I believe he is saying that for it to be a travel, if you go by the rule, the player would have to intentionally release the ball.

Originally Posted by Adam

That's what he was saying, and I don't see how his point was at all ambiguous.

Thank you gentlemen.