hand's part of the ball

oc

B1, in an attempt to play the ball, slaps at A1's hand while A1's hand is on the ball (dribbling or holding the ball).

situation 1: ball goes oob.

situation 2: A1 loses control of the ball and team B picks it up.

In situation 1: I got A's ball oob on B.

in situation 2: I got a no call.

Am I right? Friend of mine made a good point that my interpretation on these 2 situations isn't really consistent-although I still think I am probably right because in situation 1 it would be very difficult for B1 to have contacted all hand without touching a little of the ball.

situation 3: A1 attempts to rebound the ball and gets one hand on it. B1 pushes A1's hand and ball goes oob. It is obvious B1 never touched the ball-only A1's hand. Whose ball?

Jurassic Referee

MISCONCEPTION: The hand is not part of the ball. I've never, ever seen a ball with a hand attached to it.

There is a exception to the rules that sez it's not a foul if you contact an opponent's hand while it is on the ball, as long as that contact is deemed incidental to an attempt to play the ball. Iow, it's a judgement call. If an official feels that a defender deliberately whacked an opponent's hand while it was on the ball, then it is a foul. As most officials aren't mindreaders, the usual call is that the contact was incidental and not deliberate, and therefore no foul was involved.

Just semantics, but I wanted to straighten that one out.

rainmaker

Originally posted by oc
B1, in an attempt to play the ball, slaps at A1's hand while A1's hand is on the ball (dribbling or holding the ball).

situation 1: ball goes oob.

situation 2: A1 loses control of the ball and team B picks it up.

In situation 1: I got A's ball oob on B.

in situation 2: I got a no call.

Am I right? Friend of mine made a good point that my interpretation on these 2 situations isn't really consistent-although I still think I am probably right because in situation 1 it would be very difficult for B1 to have contacted all hand without touching a little of the ball.

situation 3: A1 attempts to rebound the ball and gets one hand on it. B1 pushes A1's hand and ball goes oob. It is obvious B1 never touched the ball-only A1's hand. Whose ball?

Re #1: Unless I see B contact the ball, I call it oob on A, B's ball. My thinking is that if the defender is skilled enough to get all hand (and unless I see otherwise, that's what they did), then I want to reward that good defense.

There's some gray area here, though. If the defender was AIMING for the hand, is the contact incidental? It is a play on the ball, since it aims to control the ball, but it does it through the dribbler's hand. So where does that fall, Jurassic?

mick

A ball.
B caused ball to go outa bounds.

rainmaker

Originally posted by mick
A ball.
B caused ball to go outa bounds.

Seriously, mick?

mick

Originally posted by rainmaker

Originally posted by mick
A ball.
B caused ball to go outa bounds.

Seriously, mick?

Yes, Jewel.
If the ball goes cleanly out, without A touching again,
then I saw B cause the ball to go out.
Quick, clean, fair.
mick

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by mick

Originally posted by rainmaker

Originally posted by mick
A ball.
B caused ball to go outa bounds.

Seriously, mick?

Yes, Jewel.
If the ball goes cleanly out, without A touching again,
then I saw B cause the ball to go out.
Quick, clean, fair.
mick

Now comes the fun part......😃

Got a rule to back that up, Mick? One that negates R7-2-1?

Old Dude Ref

I agree with the decisions made.

Let's include one more situation. Defenders almost always disagree when a foul is called on them when a shooter has just released the ball on a try and their hand contacts the shooters hand when the ball is barely released. I always call this a foul. My theory is the follow-through is very important on a shot and that hand-to-hand contact disrupts the shot and therefore should be a foul.

Your thoughts.

M&M Guy

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Now comes the fun part......😃

Got a rule to back that up, Mick? One that negates R7-2-1?

Ooooh, I just LOVE the smell of freshly-popped corn...

mick

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by mick

Originally posted by rainmaker

Originally posted by mick
A ball.
B caused ball to go outa bounds.

Seriously, mick?

Yes, Jewel.
If the ball goes cleanly out, without A touching again,
then I saw B cause the ball to go out.
Quick, clean, fair.
mick
Now comes the fun part......😃

Got a rule to back that up, Mick? One that negates R7-2-1?

JR,
I *ABuse* 7-2-1.

[*] "Coach, if it happened the way you say, then I may have kicked it."
mick

FrankHtown

9-3 says "A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds" Isn't that what B1 did? Caused the ball to go out of bounds?

Camron Rust

Originally posted by Old Dude Ref
I agree with the decisions made.

Let's include one more situation. Defenders almost always disagree when a foul is called on them when a shooter has just released the ball on a try and their hand contacts the shooters hand when the ball is barely released. I always call this a foul. My theory is the follow-through is very important on a shot and that hand-to-hand contact disrupts the shot and therefore should be a foul.

Your thoughts.

While follow-through is important, its important only in the sense that the shooter releases the ball in the proper motion....and the follow-through is just an indicator of that. After the ball is released, there is no amount of contact on the shooter that will affect the shot. I'll rarely call a mere brushing of the hands after the release....it's simply not part of the play.

mick

Originally posted by FrankHtown
9-3 says "A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds" Isn't that what B1 did? Caused the ball to go out of bounds?

🙂
Yer a good man, FrankHtown.
Although there is no clarification for 9-3, 7.2.1 Situation works close enough for me.

I think this is not unlike:
[*]Rebounder A with good position reaches straight up to grab rebound [hands on the *sides* of the round ball] while rebounder B swats the back of the ball outa bounds. B causes the ball to be outa bounds, although, physically, A may have touched the ball last.

mick

reffish

So, ball is heading out of bounds, A1 is able to catch ball and fling it over his head to save the ball. The ball is visibly going out of bounds before B1, who is behind him, reaches out with his hand and his fingers visible touch the ball. With or without the touching by B1, the ball was going to be OOB, due to the action of A1 saving the ball and cousing the ball to go OOB at another location. Whose ball?

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by FrankHtown
9-3 says "A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds" Isn't that what B1 did? Caused the ball to go out of bounds?

Yabut.....B1 caused the ball to go OOB by knocking it off of A1's hands last, right?

Is that really any different than B1 trying to save a ball and throwing it off of A1's body so that it then goes OOB? Are you gonna give A1 the ball in that sitch too by using the same rationale? Wasn't the ball last touched inbounds by A1 in both of these cases?

mick

Originally posted by reffish
So, ball is heading out of bounds, A1 is able to catch ball and fling it over his head to save the ball. The ball is visibly going out of bounds before B1, who is behind him, reaches out with his hand and his fingers visible touch the ball. With or without the touching by B1, the ball was going to be OOB, due to the action of A1 saving the ball and cousing the ball to go OOB at another location. Whose ball?

reffish,
Your different sitch would be Team A ball for throw-in.
mick

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Although there is no clarification for 9-3, 7.2.1 Situation works close enough for me.

[/B][/QUOTE]How is 7.2.1 relevant? In that play, B1 bats the ball, not the hand(s). Different situation entirely.

mick

Originally posted by Old Dude Ref
I agree with the decisions made.

Let's include one more situation. Defenders almost always disagree when a foul is called on them when a shooter has just released the ball on a try and their hand contacts the shooters hand when the ball is barely released. I always call this a foul. My theory is the follow-through is very important on a shot and that hand-to-hand contact disrupts the shot and therefore should be a foul.

Your thoughts.

Old Dude Ref,
Welcome to the forum.

With the ball released [off the hand], any further follow through of the hand becomes nothing more than *hand jive*, body English and cannot possibly affect the rotation, or flight, of the ball with anything except the increased air circulation of the follow-through, ...assuming there is no magic wand in that particular grip. 🙂

mick

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by Old Dude Ref
I agree with the decisions made.

Let's include one more situation. Defenders almost always disagree when a foul is called on them when a shooter has just released the ball on a try and their hand contacts the shooters hand when the ball is barely released. I always call this a foul. My theory is the follow-through is very important on a shot and that hand-to-hand contact disrupts the shot and therefore should be a foul.

Your thoughts.

How could a shot possibly be disrupted by contact that occurred after the shot left the shooter's hands? That's physically impossible. After the shot is gone, you would have to touch the ball to disrupt it's flight. Any contact by the defender that occurs after the shot is gone should be ignored as being incidental unless it happens to place the shooter at some kinda disadvantage or it's rough play. Jmo.

mick

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by mick

Although there is no clarification for 9-3, 7.2.1 Situation works close enough for me.

[/B]

How is 7.2.1 relevant? In that play, B1 bats the ball, not the hand(s). Different situation entirely.

[/B][/QUOTE]

• "Sorry if I kicked another one, Coach.
But, I woulda sworn he hit the ball, ...again."
🙂
mick