Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1054992)

Exclusive player control.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1054983)

Back in ancient times we had something called “Change of Status”.

The "Change of Status" rule primarily dealt with the transition of the ball from live to dead (or vice versa).

When it came to a held ball (two players wrestling for control), the rule was used to determine if a team could save the possession with a timeout.

As soon as two opponents both have firm hands on the ball, a held ball occurs. This is a "Change of Status" where player control is lost. Under the old status rules, if the official judged that the status had changed due to a held ball (even if the whistle hadn't blown yet), the timeout request was denied because player control no longer existed.

“Change of Status” also denied requests for timeouts when 80% of a count had been reached; four seconds of a five second count (inbounding, closely guarded), and eight seconds of a ten second count.

Am I correct in my explanation Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1054996)

In ancient times, wasn't the term "tie ball"?.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1054996)

"Held ball" referred to a 5 second count while closely guarded.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1054997)

You've got my antennae up. Did a five second closely guarded "violation" lead to a violation or to a "jump ball"?

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1054998)

Robert Goodman piqued my curiosity, and not wanting to wait for Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. to climb up into his cold attic, I did some research myself.

For decades, beginning in the 1930s, if a player was closely guarded for five seconds, the official blew the whistle and called for an actual jump ball.

During the 1982-1983 season (my third season officiating), the NFHS decided to make the five-second violation a straight turnover.

The goal was to reward aggressive defense more directly and simplify the game.

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1055011)

In your words Billy, the simultaneous "control" would physically occur before a coach/player could call timeout so why would there ever be a concern about granting a TO? The held ball occurs first. Also, unsure why you used the words "four hands" as there can be a held ball without 4 hands on the ball. Lastly, there are times where a ball cannot be "wrestled" away without undue roughness however, there are also far more times where it can be wrestled away cleanly. Your descriptions indicate a held ball followed by an apparent travel. I am confused in that, even you, acknowledge that the held ball occurred first. So, where would a travel be called. I'd say this...if a held ball situation occurs, then you can't have any other violation.

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1055011)

... however, there are also far more times where it can be wrestled away cleanly ...

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1055011)

... the simultaneous "control" would physically occur before a coach/player could call timeout so why would there ever be a concern about granting a TO? The held ball occurs first.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1055013)

... and while we're waiting to see if it can be wrestled away cleanly (i.e., no held ball yet) can either player, both of whom have two hands (for sake of clarity) holding (player control) the ball, request and be granted a timeout? Note that the definition of player control does not currently say "exclusive" player control regarding requesting and being granted a timeout. It just says player control which can simply mean holding the ball.

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1055011)

... there are times where a ball cannot be "wrestled" away without undue roughness however, there are also far more times where it can be wrestled away cleanly.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1055013)

... and while we're waiting to see if it can be wrestled away cleanly (i.e., no held ball yet) can either player, both of whom have two hand's (for sake of clarity) holding (player control) the ball, request and be granted a timeout?

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1055020)

If said player is deemed to be holding the ball (in this case with two hands), he is also deemed to have player control, and thus is he also eligible to request and be granted a timeout?

Originally Posted by FlasherZ (Post 1055048)

That's silly and so far off the mark that it's laughable, whether the rulebook covered that case or not. If it's about a team retaining possession, then we have to ask if team B ever had possession in the first place, and it's clear they didn't. Or what am I missing?

Originally Posted by FlasherZ (Post 1055048)

Shouldn't we just look at this practically? Time after time after time, I keep reading questions about crazy esoteric situations. If you follow the spirit of the rule, it's pretty simple - in these cases, timeouts are called to attempt to maintain possession of the ball where it looks like possession might be lost.



I'm interpreting your question as "should we allow a player from the other team to be able to put two hands on the ball and immediately call timeout, claiming player control so that team B can now inbound the ball as theirs?" That's silly and so far off the mark that it's laughable, whether the rulebook covered that case or not. If it's about a team retaining possession, then we have to ask if team B ever had possession in the first place, and it's clear they didn't.



Or what am I missing?



I'm constantly baffled by the focus on esoterics, when we as a society can't seem to get basic attitudes right toward officiating in the first place, from officials, coaches, and fans.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1055067)

If Billy believes this to be the case he should try it out in a game and see how it is received.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1054976)

I fully agree in real game situations, and always do such in my games, but I'm not sure that the rule language supports this.