Are there any new HS rules this year concerning held balls (given the NCAA's experimenting with jumping rather than alternate possession in some conferences)?

Also, for clarification: if a jump ball tip is immediately held by two other opposing players, with no apparent possession by either, am I correct that the re-jump involves the two "held ball" players, or the original jumpers?

Nope.

Yup - held ball players.

Rejump with the original players.
 

Similar to out of bounds with no possession.

Re: Rejump with the original players.
 

6-3-3 NOTE: If the AP procedure has not been established, the jump ball shall be between the two players involved in the center restraining circle.

Because of the placement of the note, it's confusing; it applies to all of 6-3-3, not just f.

The two "held ball players. Casebook play 6.3.1SitC(c).

Re: Re: Rejump with the original players.
 

R6-3-3..."In all jump ball situations <b>other than the start of the game or each extra period</b>...".

This rule doesn't apply to the question asked by bwbuddy.

No, and let's pray they don't!

Re: Re: Re: Rejump with the original players.
 

The game had already started (with the first jump ball), so the rule does apply -- we're applying it to the second jump.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rejump with the original players.
 

Bob,if you did that,you would be directly going aginst the direction of casebook play 6.3.1SitC(c). That cite is labelled "<b>Jump Ball To Start The Game</b>",and says that if A1 and B1 jump,and then A2 and B2 simultaneously control the ball,then A2 and B2 will then jump.Isn't it obvious that R6-3-3 isn't being applied? If it was,then A1 & B1 would re-jump.If the ball went OOB with no possession either,and A2 & B2 were the last two to touch it simultaneously inbounds after the jump,then A2 and B2 would jump also.Again R6-3-3 doesn't apply according to casebook play 6.3.1SitC(b).

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 9th, 2003 at 08:31 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rejump with the original players.
 

Bob,if you did that,you would be directly going aginst the direction of casebook play 6.3.1SitC(c). That cite is labelled "<b>Jump Ball To Start The Game</b>",and says that if A1 and B1 jump,and then A2 and B2 simultaneously control the ball,then A2 and B2 will then jump.Isn't it obvious that R6-3-3 isn't being applied? If it was,then A1 & B1 would re-jump.If the ball went OOB with no possession either,and A2 & B2 were the last two to touch it simultaneously inbounds after the jump,then A2 and B2 would jump also.Again R6-3-3 doesn't apply according to casebook play 6.3.1SitC(b).

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 9th, 2003 at 08:31 AM] [/QUOTE]

Either I'm misreading something, or you are.

I agree that if A1 and B1 jump initially, and A2 and B2 tie it up, that A2 and B2 will jump.

That's what I think the NOTE to 6-3-3 says ("jump between the two players involved").

Maybe the "in the center circle" in confusing -- that's where the rejump occurs (even if the held ball is on one of the FT lines), not a modification to who jumps (not "those who were involved in the original center-circle jump").

Either I'm misreading something, or you are.

I agree that if A1 and B1 jump initially, and A2 and B2 tie it up, that A2 and B2 will jump.

That's what I think the NOTE to 6-3-3 says ("jump between the two players involved").

[/B][/QUOTE]I think that I mighta been misreading you.I thought that you were agreeing with Damian.We certainly agree on what the proper call should be.

Nevermind.

Btw,I can see how the note could possibly apply to most of R6-3-3,but I still can't think of any way that you would end up in a FT shooting situation,as in 6-3-3(c),without an AP being established.Can you?

How about: during pre-game warm-ups B1 dunks the ball. B1 is assessed a technical foul. To begin the game A1 attempts the two FTs. (Arrow isn't set until the throw-in after the FTs.) While A1 is holding the ball for the second FT, B3 accidently steps inside the FT circle. A1's FT fails to hit the rim.

Double FT violation before the AP has been established. Does that work?

No, because A would still get the ball as part of the penalty for the T.

And, I can't think of a way either. Maybe it's left over from some prior rule change (for example, if the arrow used to be not set until the throw-in on a foul before posession, then: Foul during jump, simultaneous violation during FT ==> jump between violators. )

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins
Duh. Obviously. Sorry Sigh. :rolleyes:

Okay, but Chuck, that was a great try! I am in awe!

Hey Chuck! You're aweful too!

Actually, Dan, you do realize, don't you, that it's ME that's full-of-awe and thus awe-ful, right. You and Chuck are aweSOME!! Get it?

Your in awe? I thought you were in Oregon. Did Padgett run you out?

Either I'm misreading something, or you are.

I agree that if A1 and B1 jump initially, and A2 and B2 tie it up, that A2 and B2 will jump.

That's what I think the NOTE to 6-3-3 says ("jump between the two players involved").

Maybe the "in the center circle" in confusing -- that's where the rejump occurs (even if the held ball is on one of the FT lines), not a modification to who jumps (not "those who were involved in the original center-circle jump").
[/QUOTE]
Bob,
You are exactly right on this one. The wording is poor, but what you have written is what it means. It is a hold-over from before the AP arrow and when jump balls used to be held in all three circles.
We had a discussion about this exact phrase last year when training some of the newer guys because they misread the phrase just as JR. But hey, he's not a rookie! What gives?
Maybe Juules can give us a grammar lesson on this one.

Thanks guys. I learned something.
 

Originally I thought it should be the two players involved, but then my brain tricked me and I started thinking of something else and got it wrong. That's why I come here.

We had a discussion about this exact phrase last year when training some of the newer guys because they misread the phrase just as JR. But hey, he's not a rookie! What gives?
[/B][/QUOTE]Would you care to enlighten me as to how the note In R6-3-3 would then apply to article R6-3-3(c) if it's meant to apply to the whole section? Please cite an instance where you can have a FT violation before the AP arrow is set.Feel free to use all the officials in Nevada,if you like,when you try to come up with one.Maybe you can also tell me if the placement of that note afer article 6-3-3(f) means that it doesn't apply to articles R6-3-3g&h,but just the preceding articles.

I await your training.

Jeez, JR. You need a hug this morning? Cranky old b@$&^$%@
:)

Who,me?
http://www.gifs.net/animate/history.gif

Would you care to enlighten me as to how the note In R6-3-3 would then apply to article R6-3-3(c) if it's meant to apply to the whole section? Please cite an instance where you can have a FT violation before the AP arrow is set.Feel free to use all the officials in Nevada,if you like,when you try to come up with one.Maybe you can also tell me if the placement of that note afer article 6-3-3(f) means that it doesn't apply to articles R6-3-3g&h,but just the preceding articles.

I await your training. [/B][/QUOTE]

While we seem to agreed on what the proper call is and who to have jump, we disagree on why. There are two separate points being made now. The first is that the wording of the note is confusing. When I wrote that JR has misread this note, it is the wording problem to which I was referring. The note should say, "...the two players involved and take place in the center restraining circle." This would make it much clearer that the phrase in the center restraining cirlce is not modifying the players, but giving clarification as to the location to be used.

The second issue is whether or not 6-3-3 applies at all in these situations or if the casebook play has somehow overriden it. JR believes it does not apply and the casebook play has somehow replaced it in these particular instances. I believe that 6-3-3 with its note and the casebook play are consistent with each other. You must understand that the note is actually an exception, and it would be better if it were labelled as such, but the editors of the NFHS rules book have never done a good job, so why should we expect them to have in this case? If you understand the syntax of the note to mean what I wrote above, then it says to do exactly what is spelled out in the casebook play. So they match up.
Now to answer JR's argument about part c. It is really a question of logic. The note (which should be called an exception) has the logical form: If X, then Y. This means that if we do not have X, then we don't do Y. So it may well be impossible for there to be a simultaneous free throw violation when the AP procedure has not yet been established (I certainly can't think of such a case), but this doesn't mean that the note doesn't apply. In fact, it does apply, but simply the "if X condition" hasn't been met, so we don't do the Y part. So, if during a game, we have a simultaneous free throw violation, we have an established AP, and the note only talks about situations when we don't. Therefore, there is no conflict and we just follow 6-3-3 as normal.
Lastly, as for its placement before g and h, just blame the silly editors again. It certainly does apply to g and h, too.

I beg to differ.

However,please feel free to interpret the rules any way that you like. Also,please feel free to apply them any way that you like. And certainly continue to feel free to call only the ones that you personally agree with.

It is a free country.