Held Ball or Foul?

[JRutledge]

What happen first? The held ball happen first. You should have a held ball. It was the tugging on the ball that caused the contact (you said no contact).

Peace

[djskinn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What happen first? The held ball happen first. You should have a held ball. It was the tugging on the ball that caused the contact (you said no contact).

Peace

I don't think I like the held ball call because I was thinking this was similar to a player wrapping his arms around a player. I went with the foul in my game, but was curious what other officials might call.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by djskinn

I don't think I like the held ball call because I was thinking this was similar to a player wrapping his arms around a player. I went with the foul in my game, but was curious what other officials might call.

Did the player in your game wrap his arms around the opponent? No.

Then how is this play similiar?

You can't have a foul without contact. In your play, there is no contact between A2 and B2.

[djskinn]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Did the player in your game wrap his arms around the opponent? No.

Then how is this play similiar?

You can't have a foul without contact. In your play, there is no contact between A2 and B2.

If you are physically capable of wrapping your arms around a player without contact due to size (larger vs. smaller player), are you still calling a held ball. Seems to me that the defensive player has created a major disadvantage and could do so by not initially creating any contact whatsoever.

In my situation, and at that moment, it appeared to me that this was an instance of advantage/disadvantage.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by djskinn

If you are physically capable of wrapping your arms around a player without contact due to size (larger vs. smaller player), are you still calling a held ball. Seems to me that the defensive player has created a major disadvantage and could do so by not initially creating any contact whatsoever.

In my situation, and at that moment, it appeared to me that this was an instance of advantage/disadvantage.

A/D only applies to contact that is otherwise illegal. In this post, you have no contact. "Reaching" is not illegal, no matter what the coach tells you.

[Back In The Saddle]

Let me just throw out a few simple definitions and see if this adds any clarity to the discussion. First the def of held ball:

A held ball occurs when:
ART. 1 . . . Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.

As has been pointed out, the fact that the player from behind is able to drag the other player to the ground is abundant proof that the ball is held.

Since this situation would be (if it were to be) a personal foul, let's look at it too:

ART. 1 . . . A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead.

Again, as has been stated, if there is no contact, there can be no personal foul.

And finally, what if there had been contact. Here's what the rules say about incidental contact:

SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT
Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.
ART. 1 . . . The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.
ART. 2 . . . Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

The OP seems to be of the opinion that if there is contact in the process of creating a held ball, it's pretty much an automatic foul. He cites the wraparound as an example. But I disagree. I may get some push back here because one player had "inside position." But once the ball is directly over the heads of the two players I think inside position is largely nullified and you really have to be careful about whether any contact that occurrs actually hinders the opponent. Is there displacement? Is either player's freedom of natural motion restrained?

So the OP demonstrably meets the criteria for a held ball. It lacks a key ingredient to be called a personal foul, namely contact. And when consider incidental contact, we have to conclude that even if there were some contact, it may not be a foul. It seems to me that the rules are clearly at odds with the OP's original position on this issue.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by djskinn

I don't think I like the held ball call because I was thinking this was similar to a player wrapping his arms around a player. I went with the foul in my game, but was curious what other officials might call.

You called a foul because there was contact alone? That is not a very good judgment if you ask me. There is almost always contact on a held ball. You should not call a foul if there was a held ball first and then contact second.

Peace

[imagomer]

WOW! As a coach who has learned that there is no "over the back" and that a taller player MAY reach over a shorter player for a rebound, so long as there is no advantageous contact, I would freak out (and be ignored by most officials here) if you called my player for her fifth (hypothetically) because a girl whom she had not contacted fell down while they both had hold of the ball. My girl did not initiate contact to gain an advantage; the faller lost her balance to give up the advantage.

[djskinn]

Originally Posted by imagomer

WOW! As a coach who has learned that there is no "over the back" and that a taller player MAY reach over a shorter player for a rebound, so long as there is no advantageous contact, I would freak out (and be ignored by most officials here) if you called my player for her fifth (hypothetically) because a girl whom she had not contacted fell down while they both had hold of the ball. My girl did not initiate contact to gain an advantage; the faller lost her balance to give up the advantage.

No "over the back" was called and this was not a fifth foul situation. B2's pulling of the ball forced A2 off balance and backwards.

[imagomer]

Originally Posted by djskinn

No "over the back" was called and this was not a fifth foul situation. B2's pulling of the ball forced A2 off balance and backwards.

Because there is no "over the back." This is just my point - I would be freaking out because any foul called would have been an contrived one. And, hypothetically, this could have been my player's fifth. "Hypothetical" means . . .

[djskinn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You called a foul because there was contact alone? That is not a very good judgment if you ask me. There is almost always contact on a held ball. You should not call a foul if there was a held ball first and then contact second.

Peace

Seems to me that their is some advantage gained by a defensive player for reaching from behind, whether it be over the head or from behind the back. If both players went up together for a rebound and each had an equal opportunity to rebound, I would have nothing.

Good judgment or not, I still am not fully convinced a held ball is the absolute and only call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by djskinn

Seems to me that their is some advantage gained by a defensive player for reaching from behind, whether it be over the head or from behind the back. If both players went up together for a rebound and each had an equal opportunity to rebound, I would have nothing.

Good judgment or not, I still am not fully convinced a held ball is the absolute and only call.

You are missing the point. The ball was grabbed before there was any contact.

Are you telling me that if the players were facing each other and you have a clear held ball and because of the force of the players tugging on the ball they fall to the floor you have to have a foul?

If that is what you are saying that is horrible judgment. The held ball took place first. Also just wrapping your arms around another player is not automatically a foul either.

You do not have to agree with that, but remember you said there was no contact and now you are calling a foul. Not only is that bad judgment that is not using the rules the way they are supposed to be used.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by djskinn

Seems to me that their is some advantage gained by a defensive player for reaching from behind, whether it be over the head or from behind the back. If both players went up together for a rebound and each had an equal opportunity to rebound, I would have nothing.

Good judgment or not, I still am not fully convinced a held ball is the absolute and only call.

So, you're saying that you are penalizing a person for being tall or being able to jump?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by djskinn

Seems to me that their is some advantage gained by a defensive player for reaching from behind, whether it be over the head or from behind the back.

I agree. The problem is that it's a legal advantage.