Jump Ball from behind player
 

In Game 6 of the Cleveland vs Washington series, Danny Crawford called a jump ball where Lebron James had both arms wrapped around Daniel's back and was holding the ball. If you didn't see the play it's okay because everyone has seen this happen at some point. A1 is holding the ball and B1 wraps both arms around A1 from behind and tries to get a jump ball called. I call this the bear hug foul. I was shocked to see Crawford call this a jump ball and was hoping someone would give some insight into why he called it this way.

I would assume he called a jump ball because Lebron did not foul the ball handler. There is nothing that says you cannot call a jump ball from a player behind the ball handler. It would depend on how the player held the ball. All contact is not a foul at any level.

Peace

I didn't see it but LeBron does have pretty long arms and Daniels is pretty skinny. Maybe LeBron was able to accomplish this feat without actually touching Daniels.

Well said.

It is a myth that grabbing the ball from behind in this manner is an automatic foul. It may be difficult to do without fouling but it can be done...and it just happened.

I agree that in theory a player can do this without much contact (or any at all). I've always thought of this as an automatic foul but I suppose I need to rethink what I consider automatic.

Has anyone ever called a jump ball like this?

You mean held ball! :p

Yep, your right :p

Different Levels
 

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.

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.

Is this not why we get paid the big bucks? ;)

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

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.

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

Who gets paid big bucks? :confused:

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.

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.

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.:rolleyes:

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.

If you believe all contact puts a player at a disadvantage, call a foul. Rule 4-27-5 does say, "No reasonable chance to play the ball...." The rule does not say all contact is a foul. Call what you see and the way you interpret the rules. That is not the way I see it or others that are here. You have to make a decision based on your experience and your philosophy.

Peace

While the defender's location is relevant to determine whether the contact is incidental, it's not sufficient. What the contact itself does matters, as well. If he's leaning or pushing (most of the time, this is what happens), it's a foul. If he's just spooning, and he's not leaning or pushing or holding or pulling, then the contact had nothing to do with the result of the play.

Again, contact itself is never a foul. The contact must be of an advantageous nature, not just happening simultaneous with a good defensive play.