Held Ball Player Control

[BillyMac]

Exclusive player control.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Exclusive player control.

Current rule language: Player control exists when a player is dribbling or holding a live ball.

Improved rule language: Player control exists when a player is dribbling or exclusively holding a live ball.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.?

In ancient times, wasn't the term "tie ball"? "Held ball" referred to a 5 second count while closely guarded.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

All situations that are now held balls (and others) were actual jump balls, at one of the three jump ball circles on the court.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

You've got my antennae up.

Did a five second closely guarded "violation" lead to a violation or to a "jump ball"?

Am I supposed to remember that?

It was the eighties man, lots of cocaine.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

All I brought up was the terminology, not the consequences.

[bucky]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

Lots of great points, but the current rule language doesn't quite match.

It's like some of us, some of whom weren't even alive in the early 1980s, are going back to a now long gone and forgotten change of status rule.

Four hands for clarity. I'm aware of the new interpretation.

Once again, I'm asking questions, not making conclusions.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

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

... 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?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... 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

... 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.

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... 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

... 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

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?

Same question for this player's "wrestling" opponent, both of whom are holding the ball at the same time.

Seems like things were easier back when we had the change of status rules.

When they were deleted, the rule language never quite "caught up", yet the purpose and intent tradition still seems to have hung around, carried through generations of officials by observing older officials.

[FlasherZ]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by FlasherZ

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?

They didn't? Why not? They were holding the ball. That's the actual literal definition of player control (the rule doesn't say player possession, it says player control) for the purpose of granting a request for a timeout (nor does it say exclusive player control).

Laughable? For many years, the NFHS thought enough of this situation to have a rule, called change of status, to cover this situation, "Sorry coach. Too late. Change of status".

Over forty years ago, for some reason, the NFHS got rid of the change of status rule, and left us with, what I believe to be, imperfect rule language

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by FlasherZ

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.

100% spot on assessment of what BM is suggesting.

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

He's had 45 years to implement it.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

Read my posts.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

I would never do this is a real game.

Why not?

Because since the removal of the change of status rule forty years ago tens of thousands of officials have continued to call it as if we still had the change of status rule, despite the fact that imperfect rule language says otherwise.

Purpose and intent, even forty year old purpose and intent, and possibly "tradition", trumps imperfect rule language.