2 SLIGHTLY different plays - 2 VERY different calls
 

I'm struggling with two very similar plays that require two different calls according to the rules.

Play #1: A1 jumps to attempt a shot. B1 places a hand on the ball so that the ball never leaves A1's hand. A1 returns to the floor with the ball. According to Rule 4.25.2, the correct call is a held ball. Go to the AP.

Play #2: A1 jumps to attempt a shot. B1 places a hand on the ball so that the ball leaves A1's hand one inch. A1 returns to the floor with the ball. According to Case Book play 4.44.3 Situation A (c), the correct call is a traveling violation on A. Ball goes to team B.

I have to admit, my officiating instinct is to come out strong with a jump ball signal for both situations. In fact, it can be hard to distinguish between the two if the ball barely leaves the shooter's hands in the second example. Anyone else struggle with this? Any suggestions for making the correct call in play #2?

RFP, nowhere is situation (c) does it say that the ball left A1's hands. You've inadvertantly changed the play. That's why the ruling doesn't make sense. If the ball comes out of A1's hands, then you look at situation (a). In that case, the ball remains live and we play on.

In 4.44.3 Situation A c the ball never leaves A1's hand.

The key is whether the touch prevented A1 from releasing the ball.

If it did, held ball. If not, travel.

Play #1

This is a jump ball situation, so you go to the AP

Play #2
I am thinking that since the ball was blocked in this situation and A can retrieve the ball.

What exactly does this case say? I don't have HS case book, so am wondering if its the same ruling as NCAA. I think it is.

Originally Posted by just another ref
In 4.44.3 Situation A c the ball never leaves A1's hand.

A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and touches the ball and A1 returns to the floor holding the ball.

aaaaahhhhh....thanks for clearing this up for me.

This case results in Held ball, go to AP.? Correct?

I am starting to see the confusion in the OP. When the ball leaves the shooters hand then the retrieve it it becomes a travel when they return to the floor.

In this case the ruling was that the touch did not prevent the release of the ball. (paraphrasing now) The touch merely disoriented A1, after which he returned to the floor, still holding the ball. Traveling

In d of the same situation, A1 drops the ball to the floor and touches it first after it bounces. This is also ruled traveling for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.

I don't think so. If the ball leaves the shooter's hand, then player control is lost. The shooter can then retrieve the ball and return to the floor with no penalty. Play on.

It's only a travel if (a) the shooter returns to the floor with continuous control of the ball and (b) the ball was NOT prevented from leaving the shooter's hand by the defender.

I agree too.

Casebook 4.44.3 Situation A: d A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and touches the ball and A1 drops it to the floor and touches it first after it bounces. Ruling: a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.


In this case, the book specifies that the ruling did not prevent the release of the ball on a pass or shot. On paper, then, this ruling is undeniable. But in the real world I would think that if B1 touches the ball, more often A1 will be given the benefit of the doubt that B1 knocked the ball loose. Therefore A1 will be allowed to recover the ball in any way without penalty.

If A1 left the floor to attempt a shot - and it was blocked, there is no travel.
If the shot didn't leave A1's hand it is a held ball go to AP
If the shot left the hand of A1 and was blocked A1 can retrieve tha ball or come down with it rule 4 article 43
section b If the player jumps, neither foot may return to the floof before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal, The ball left A1's hand one inch that makes it a try for goal no travel play on.
I can not see how the Case book would justify trevling here

I completely disagree. Why penalize the defense?

How does what JAR said penalize the defense?

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.....