Jump Ball from behind player

[Almost Always Right]

While the play looked correctly called on TV, in a pro game - Most(if not all) of us in here call college and high school ball. As an official at the college and/or H.S. level, I need to make sure that I am working as hard as I can to get a VERY good angle if I am going to go held ball on this one. I am of the mind that an NBA athlete could pull this off(sometimes), it is highly improbable that a H.S. or college player would have the physical and mental ability to get this done.(Although not completely impossible)
Plus, my answer to my partner(s) or a coach is not very complicated if I go with a foul.
Thanks
AAR

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Almost Always Right

While the play looked correctly called on TV, in a pro game - Most(if not all) of us in here call college and high school ball. As an official at the college and/or H.S. level, I need to make sure that I am working as hard as I can to get a VERY good angle if I am going to go held ball on this one. I am of the mind that an NBA athlete could pull this off(sometimes), it is highly improbable that a H.S. or college player would have the physical and mental ability to get this done.(Although not completely impossible)
Plus, my answer to my partner(s) or a coach is not very complicated if I go with a foul.
Thanks
AAR

If there's no contact, then you've either got to lie or get complicated. No contact, no foul. I've seen it enough to know it can happen now and then; especially at lower levels where the guy with the ball isn't quick-thinking enough to stick it far enough in front of him to force the defense to either let go or sit on top of the ball handler.
As Rut said, just touching the ball handler isn't necessarily a foul here; unless the contact itself creates an advantage. I think this is called a foul too often, but that's just me.

[blindzebra]

I disagree completely, that some contact isn't a foul in this situation.

How can encircling a player that PREVENTS NORMAL MOVEMENT not be a foul?

The rules also say that the trailing player, i.e. the player behind, is responsible for contact when they are in a disadvantaged position.

Is it technically possible that it can be done without contact? Sure, but it is a foul if there is contact before the tie up, IMO.

Also I find that WAY too much contact is allowed while attempting to get a held ball, which gets rewarded with no foul. Grabbing, slapping and diving on another player is a foul, and it does not get called nearly enough.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I disagree completely, that some contact isn't a foul in this situation.

How can encircling a player that PREVENTS NORMAL MOVEMENT not be a foul?

Is this not why we get paid the big bucks?

Originally Posted by blindzebra

The rules also say that the trailing player, i.e. the player behind, is responsible for contact when they are in a disadvantaged position.

Once again, this is why we get paid the big bucks.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Is it technically possible that it can be done without contact? Sure, but it is a foul if there is contact before the tie up, IMO.

I do not think anyone suggested that this would be done without any contact. Also the rules make it very clear that all contact is not a foul. So you will have to decide if the contact that takes place is a foul or not.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Also I find that WAY too much contact is allowed while attempting to get a held ball, which gets rewarded with no foul. Grabbing, slapping and diving on another player is a foul, and it does not get called nearly enough.

Once again, this is where judgment comes in. You have to decided when contact occurs if there is a foul. This is not at all an exact science and I for one cannot tell you what passes the test for you as compared to other officials. I think many of us said that we have either seen it take place without a foul or can understand why there is not foul. I would never suggest this situation always should be a no call. I have called many fouls on players that tried to grab the ball from behind or non-advantageous positions. I think I have called many more fouls than not calling fouls in these situations. The problem is we are mostly talking about theory and possible application. I think you should still call fouls when appropriate. Just understand that you cannot fit this situation into a one size fits all solution.

Peace

[Snake~eyes]

Who gets paid big bucks?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

How can encircling a player that PREVENTS NORMAL MOVEMENT not be a foul?

If you've got normal movement plus contact that's hindering that movement, then, yes, it should be a foul.

If the player being encircled isn't moving though , then it's strictly a judgement call as to whether there's enough contact on the encirclement to warrant a foul call.

Iow, it isn't an automatic foul imo.

[rainmaker]

I agree with the majority on this one. But I have a couple points to add to the discussion. For me, a lot of it depends on how they got into this situation. If the person who is being encircled is moving at all, there's going to be contact, and it is 99% a foul. I mean 99% of the time, it's a foul on the circle-r. But if the ball was grabbed by both players up in the air, and then brought down such that the circled player now has the ball in front of him, it's possible for the circle-r to maintain control of the ball without contact so that a held ball is the correct call. If I think the circle-r is trying to accomplish that maneuver and if she seems to be largely avoiding contact, I'll call a held ball before the players get clear into the bear hug position. If the circle-d player is savvy enough to move enough that the circle-r can't maintain control without illegal contact, I'll call the foul quickly, without waiting for the bear hug. It's also prudent to watch for the circle-d player to travel, although if both players have some control, the travel call isn't appropriate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I disagree completely, that some contact isn't a foul in this situation.

How can encircling a player that PREVENTS NORMAL MOVEMENT not be a foul?

You have two separate issues above. First, everytime down the court you have contact that isn't a foul. Is there something special about this kind of contact that makes it automatic? Please point me to the rule.

Second, "encircling" a player and preventing normal movement is only a foul if the contact itself is what prevents the movement. If A1 has the ball and B1 reaches from behind and grabs it, but in the process B1's chest "touches" A1's back, what foul are you going to call? He didn't push him, just touched. He didn't hold him, or prevent any movement with contact.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You have two separate issues above. First, everytime down the court you have contact that isn't a foul. Is there something special about this kind of contact that makes it automatic? Please point me to the rule.

Second, "encircling" a player and preventing normal movement is only a foul if the contact itself is what prevents the movement. If A1 has the ball and B1 reaches from behind and grabs it, but in the process B1's chest "touches" A1's back, what foul are you going to call? He didn't push him, just touched. He didn't hold him, or prevent any movement with contact.

If the contact enabled him to reach the ball from a disadvantaged position, it's a foul...PERIOD...it's no different than a hand on the hip that holds a shooter down so that the defender can get extra height to block the shot, or don't you consider that a foul either.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

If the contact enabled him to reach the ball from a disadvantaged position, it's a foul...PERIOD...it's no different than a hand on the hip that holds a shooter down so that the defender can get extra height to block the shot, or don't you consider that a foul either.

I agree, but it's also no different than minor torso contact on a shot attempt, if the torso contact has no bearing on the block attempt, then it's nothing. It's not a foul just because they touch, unless the contact itself presents an advantage; such as holding or pushing. There's no signal for "touching," because "touching" isn't a foul.

Are you saying that if he gets close enough and makes contact that would go otherwise uncalled, you're going to call it if he is able to reach the ball? If so, I disagree.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree, but it's also no different than minor torso contact on a shot attempt, if the torso contact has no bearing on the block attempt, then it's nothing. It's not a foul just because they touch, unless the contact itself presents an advantage; such as holding or pushing. There's no signal for "touching," because "touching" isn't a foul.

Are you saying that if he gets close enough and makes contact that would go otherwise uncalled, you're going to call it if he is able to reach the ball? If so, I disagree.

I don't think I can say it any clearer than I did.

It depends on where the defender is if that contact is incidental. We aren't talking about two players jumping more or less within their vertical plane, we are talking about a player in a disadvantaged position causing contact that leads to an advantage.

4-27-5 says it all. Contact that allows a tie up in this situation, is gaining an advantage and is a foul.