BsktBallRef,
I don't disagree with what you're saying but if you are a little patient with the whistle here (we're talking about fractions of seconds) the player got rid of the ball and you could play on without the held ball. This can help improve the flow of the game by keeping it moving.

The complete case book play 4.25.2 says that A1 is jumping to try for goal <b>or to pass the ball</b>, and that B1 prevented A1 from releasing the ball.The RULING says that it's a held ball <b>when</b> airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball <b>to pass</b> <font color = red>or</font> try for goal. In this particular sitch, B1 <b>never</b> prevented A1 from passing. If B1 hadda prevented A1 from passing as well as shooting, then I would say "yes, that's an <b>immediate</b> jump ball at the time when both are prevented.

Just can't agree with you on this one, Tony. Imo, this one isn't a violation until the airborne shooter is prevented from both shooting <b>and</b> passing, and he never was prevented from passing.

I stand corrected. I bow to you all. :)

JR -- In strict logic rules, the word "or" doesn't mean both, it means one only is good enough. "If you have a red coat, or green boots, you may enter the building" means that both people with red coat but no green boots, and people with no red coat but green boots will be in there. If the rule says that the defender prevents shot OR pass, that means only one need prevented to have the held ball.

Not that it's all that relevant to the overall discussion, but in formal logic, "or" means "at least one" which implies "possibly both". So in your example Juulie, people with a red coat and green boots would also be admitted.

Formally, you are correct, but for efficiency's sake, any process put in place to analyze an OR situation would only look for one of the various options. In other words, as soon as you see the red coat, there's no need to look for green boots. He's in.

I'm a software engineer....I can't help myself. The geek in me just comes out. :)

AHA! You said it! The rule does NOT say that the player has to be prevented from shooting AND passing the ball. It says shooting OR passing the ball. The case play is simply addressing a player that jumps and tries to shoot OR pass, not necessarily both. As Bob Jenkins said, the jump ball occurs immediately. I agree with him and the case book.

If you don't call the held ball, then you penalize the defense. That's like holding the whistle on a traveling violation because you think the player will get rid of the ball.

I'm not going to ignore things that SHOULD be called just to help the flow of the game. If the defender makes a good play, he should be rewarded, not ignored.

Case Book >4.25.2
Says (keep A1 from releasing ball) but in case in ? A1 has time to pass ball.
No call.

Well that certainly clears it up. I wish we had though to look at the case play. :(

I take it that was a slam for being so stuuned.
Sorry for trying an imput.
Will try to do better.

Well, between the imputs and the red coats and green boots, I'm a little stuuned myself right now. I think that I still agree with what I wrote before though, whatever the hell that was.

LOL!

I had a play last year in a game attended by the director of officials for Iowa. A1 goes up for a shot and gets it stuffed by B1, momentarily preventing a release. B1 immediately releases, and A1 ends up kicking it OOB. I called for B ball.
After the game, he said he thought I should have called a held ball since it prevented the shot from being released, at which point you "immediatly" (by rule) have a held ball. Taking that to the play at hand here, I've got a held ball since the shot was prevented from being released. I'm also going with Juulie's interpretation of the word "or" in the rule book.

What is the other interpretation of the word "or" ?