Dragged through the plane

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Ref Ump Welsch
Snake~eyes,

By your logic, both A1 and B1 would have to be called for OOB, because A1 is still OOB throwing in. If you call A1 for OOB because B1 contacts the ball on the "fake" in-bounds, then both are touching, therefore it would be OOB on both players.

No.

Read 7-1-1 and 2, again.

This play is not a T, because it does not fit the spirit or intent of the rule.

It can not be OOB on both players, because it does not fit the criteria for causing the ball to go out of bounds, 7-1-2 and 7-3-1.

If the ball was not released by A1, or dislodged by B1 the throw-in has not ended, so it can not be OOB on A1.

The common sense judgment would be held ball. The fact that B1's hand stayed on the ball when A1 pulled the ball back, is close enough for me to call this a held ball. The play has elements of both 4-25-1 and 2, even though it does not exactly falling under either.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

No.

Read 7-1-1 and 2, again.

This play is not a T, because it does not fit the spirit or intent of the rule.

It can not be OOB on both players, because it does not fit the criteria for causing the ball to go out of bounds, 7-1-2 and 7-3-1.

If the ball was not released by A1, or dislodged by B1 the throw-in has not ended, so it can not be OOB on A1.

The common sense judgment would be held ball. The fact that B1's hand stayed on the ball when A1 pulled the ball back, is close enough for me to call this a held ball. The play has elements of both 4-25-1 and 2, even though it does not exactly falling under either.

I appreciate your careful analysis and reference to the less-than-perfect-fit rules.

I think the 'warning for reaching through' is the most balanced unperfect fit. Do no harm. Or do as little as possible. The rule concerning the plane doesn't dare say which comes first, the chicken or the egg, at that infinitesimal limit when the ball and hand are passing from state A to state B. After all, at the electron level, they are not touching, they are merely in serious proximity to each other.

So as the hand crosses the plane, a simple warning could do the job - and no matter whether or not the ball dislodges and strikes the thrower-inner, etc.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

I appreciate your careful analysis and reference to the less-than-perfect-fit rules.

I think the 'warning for reaching through' is the most balanced unperfect fit. Do no harm. Or do as little as possible. The rule concerning the plane doesn't dare say which comes first, the chicken or the egg, at that infinitesimal limit when the ball and hand are passing from state A to state B. After all, at the electron level, they are not touching, they are merely in serious proximity to each other.

So as the hand crosses the plane, a simple warning could do the job - and no matter whether or not the ball dislodges and strikes the thrower-inner, etc.

There is no provision in the rules to warn in this situation, breaking the plane and contacting the ball is a T, so that won't work either.

Also the note after 9-2-11 calls the first part of this play legally touching. It makes no sense to penalize B when they are legally touching a ball being pulled back into a restricted area.

Keep in mind that this was a bad play by A1 and good defense by B1. To warn B in that situation seems unfair. A1 carelessness caused the situation, thus going to the arrow rewards good defense.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

There is no provision in the rules to warn in this situation, breaking the plane and contacting the ball is a T, so that won't work either.

Also the note after 9-2-11 calls the first part of this play legally touching. It makes no sense to penalize B when they are legally touching a ball being pulled back into a restricted area.

Keep in mind that this was a bad play by A1 and good defense by B1. To warn B in that situation seems unfair. A1 carelessness caused the situation, thus going to the arrow rewards good defense.

In the situation I made up, I made it clear that it wasn't a held ball. No undo force was needed. B's hand is simply touching the ball. A has the ball. B should stop at the plane but doesn't. If nothing happens, maybe nothing happened, since it doesn't fit any rule well.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
In the situation I made up, I made it clear that it wasn't a held ball. No undo force was needed. B's hand is simply touching the ball. A has the ball. B should stop at the plane but doesn't. If nothing happens, maybe nothing happened, since it doesn't fit any rule well.

Wouldn't one example of "undo" force be something like "a force that results in a violation of the rules?"

Isn't the defense player placing the hand on the ball so the offensive player can't release it on a shot a held ball that fits that example?

Use that precedent and call the held ball.

[Adam]

I think what we're saying is that we can't envision this happening without calling a held ball. If the contact is that continuous to the point where something has to be called, it's going to be a held ball. A1 isn't going to leave the ball within B1's reach here. He's either going to pull it out of reach, or there's going to be a held ball. If he pulls it out of reach, and B1 releases contact shortly after going across the plane with his hand on the ball, then I got nothing.
If A1 leaves the ball in B1's reach, and he continuously puts his hand on it; held ball.

Like the state office folks said, this is the kind you would have to be there to call it. Besides, if B1 doesn't gain some control of the ball that disallows A1 from releasing it, how can you call a held ball? If I did that here, I might as well as spend the rest of my career not even bothering to send in my application to work postseason games.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Ref Ump Welsch
Like the state office folks said, this is the kind you would have to be there to call it. Besides, if B1 doesn't gain some control of the ball that disallows A1 from releasing it, how can you call a held ball? If I did that here, I might as well as spend the rest of my career not even bothering to send in my application to work postseason games.

As if this call is going to cost you postseason work. Let's not get over dramatic on a once-in-a-lifetime play. If B never gets his hand off the ball, you're eventually going to have to call something; held ball, T, or 5 seconds. I don't think anyone who has played any serious amount of basketball can envision this happening without a held ball. Imagine every single scenario you've seen where A1 puts the ball in front of B1 like this. Has B1 ever just "touched" the ball? I've never seen it. Granted, I've only been playing and officiating for 20 years, so it's possible I haven't been around long enough. But if it ever does happen like this, I'm pretty confident my call won't affect the progression of my officiating career.

[rainmaker]

I've been away from the baord, so I'm checking in kind of late on this, but the answer seems obvious to me, and I don't understand all the discussion. If A holds the ball over the inbounds area, then B touches it legally, and then A starts to pull the ball back, and B is still touching the ball, it's a held ball long before it gets to the oob side of the plane. The whistle may not get blown that fast, but that doesn't matter. The held ball happened, and thus the ball was dead, before the warning or T type infractions. No sweat.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Ref Ump Welsch
Besides, if B1 doesn't gain some control of the ball that disallows A1 from releasing it...

But B did gain control that stopped A from releasing it. A pulled it back instead, and still couldn't get it completely away from B. That's both players having SOME control and neither player having COMPLETE control. Held ball.