He is saying that the benefit of the doubt goes to the player that is stuck in the air with less of a chance to make the basket becuause the defensive player got a hand on the ball.

If A1 jumps for a 3pt try and B1 jumps with him and touches the ball (doesn't knock it lose or create a held ball), JAR is saying that A1 should be able to drop the ball and recover it. This would be bailing out the offensive player thereby penalizing the defense.

Well, if the defense didn't do anything to stop the play, or steal the ball, then why reward them?

I think what JAR is saying, is that if you can't tell whether or not the touch of the defender had an effect on the play, then you have to decide to whom you'll give the benefit of the doubt. It's unfair either way, I suppose. So how do you decide?

BUT the defense DID stop the play by making A1 drop the ball instead of shoot it.

Okay, HOW did B make A1 drop the ball? By brushing it lightly with his hand? Well, if you're sure that's what happened you can call a travel. When I see a play like this, unless I'm 100% certain that the defensive touch had no force whatever, I'm calling it either a shot or a steal, and A1 can recover and dribble again.

My point is that you will know when B1 "knocks the ball" out of A1's hands. It doesn't matter how much force the defense enacts on the ball, all that matters is if the ball popped lose or it causes the player to come down with the ball. If the player consciously "drops the ball" then it has to be a travel, imo.

okay. I don't think JAR was saying that you should penalize the defense by letting A1 consciously drop the ball and then retrieve it. I think he was saying, and I agree, that if you aren't sure why A1 isn't holding onto the ball anymore, and there was contact by the defense, then you sorta figure that the defender knocked it out, so you call it a dislodge or a steal, and let A1 retrieve it with a new dribble, if someone else doesn't get it first.

I figured that is what he meant because he put the word drop in bold.

Just another good reason why we need Mr. Annoying Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary Guy back on the forum!!

So do you agree that if you see that the defender has had some contact, and that A1 is now no longer holding the ball, that you have to judge whether or not A1 dropped it on purpose, in order to determine whether or not to call a travel?

Where on the conscious-drop vs whacked-away continuum you end up will be a judgment, and than will effect how you call or no call this, agreed?

I'll take the Grammer Guy's spot for the time being. :D


I agree that it takes some judgement however I have always believed that the defender should be given the benefit of the doubt if you are not sure.

Where is JAR during all this ;). He could have helped with some of the confusion.

Good word! :)
You seem to have covered all the bases. :D

No you won't. :p

:D:D:D:D:D Thanks for the laugh Nevada.

That is, more or less, what I was saying. This, I think, is among the most delicate of judgment calls. Defender touched the ball. I did not think it was held firmly enough to be called a held ball. Now did he contact the ball firmly enough to knock it free, or did A1 drop the ball intentionally? If you do not know, you call nothing, which, in this case does favor the offense.

Every call/no call is perceived as unfair by someone.

We decide this just like everything else, the best we can. That's why we get the big bucks. :)

yea, that's a good word, even if they use it on Star Trek. But I'm humiliated by the than/then thing, and the affect/effect thing. Those are two of my pet peeves, and I got them both wrong.

**Groan!!***

It was just, ...uh... typos!! Yea, that's it, my typing is out of control. Uh, yea, sure, the, uh,.... typing.....