Held Ball or Foul?

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by djskinn

I don't think it is a question of one player being physically stronger than another. All I am trying to point out, is that in this particular situation, A2 was put at a disadvantage because he was pulled off balance and forced to the floor from behind.

I am just not totally sold that a held ball is the absolute best call and was curious if advantage/disadvantage could and/or should be taken into account.

C'mon -- a held ball is when opponents each have their hand(s) on the ball such that one cannot get it from the other without undue roughness (or something like that). When a player holding the ball gets pulled to the floor becuase another player pulls the ball, that's an example of "undue roughness." It's a held ball.

[djskinn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not expect everyone to agree. But you asked a question and you have defended your position as if you already had your mind made up. Now I find that odd if you are asking for opinions in the first place. Not only do people disagree with you, they gave you rule references to back it up. Then you are coming with "in my mind it just does not seem right" BS. This is not about respecting the board or not respecting the board. This is about why are you asking a question and taking everyone's position on with your own interpretation if you did not want to hear what other officials thought? Even the title of this thread suggests you have to have one or the other. I just find it silly that you said there was no contact on a held ball, but there has to be a foul. I know you are smarter than that.

Peace

JR, just let it go. Don't make the mistake of drawing assumptions. Your looking for a reason to argue.

This board offers a fluid environment and positions and questions can readily change. If you don't like what you read, you have the choice of not answering. But if you do, don't expect it to be received as the absolute and only answer.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by djskinn

JR, just let it go. Don't make the mistake of drawing assumptions. Your looking for a reason to argue.

This board offers a fluid environment and positions and questions can readily change. If you don't like what you read, you have the choice of not answering. But if you do, don't expect it to be received as the absolute and only answer.

Dude, I am not the one that asked the question. BTW, at the time of this post there were 3 more people that do not understand your logic. Go right ahead, call the foul. Just remember someone is watching and is making a judgment about your ability when you make calls like this.

Peace

[cmathews]

not that Rut needs any help here, or any support, but of all the people on the board, he is the last that I would expect to think that his is the only answer....he bends over backwards pointing out that the area you are from dictates things, that his is an opinion, that he doesn't know someone so he can't speak for them etc etc etc LOL....

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by djskinn

JR, just let it go. Don't make the mistake of drawing assumptions. Your looking for a reason to argue.

This board offers a fluid environment and positions and questions can readily change. If you don't like what you read, you have the choice of not answering. But if you do, don't expect it to be received as the absolute and only answer.

I am giving up my choice of not answering to respond and offer my support of not calling this a foul.

As Dan and Jurassic have clearly stated, this is a matter of gaining a LEGAL advantage.

And I don't think the Fed's, nor anyone else's position on this that correctly thinks this is not a foul will likely ever change.

YES, little 5'4" Tommy's/Suzie's dad is going to be upset when their child hits the floor in this situation, most likely thinking a foul should've been called.

And NO, I'm not going to call the foul that didn't occur.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

dj, you didn't answer my question. On what basis do you call a foul. What mechanic are you going to use and what foul call are you going to verbalize?

What does advantage/disadvantage have to do with it if there is not any contact? How about this, 150lb A1 goes up for a shot, 260lb B1 blocks the shot before A1 releases the ball. The force of B1 blocking the shot forces A1 to fall to the floor and bang his head. Do you call a foul on B1 even though there was no contact at all?

dj, I'm still interested in your answers.

[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.

[Ref in PA]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
"dj, you didn't answer my question. On what basis do you call a foul. What mechanic are you going to use and what foul call are you going to verbalize?

What does advantage/disadvantage have to do with it if there is not any contact? How about this, 150lb A1 goes up for a shot, 260lb B1 blocks the shot before A1 releases the ball. The force of B1 blocking the shot forces A1 to fall to the floor and bang his head. Do you call a foul on B1 even though there was no contact at all? "


This was my thought also. If a B1 were to push on the basketball alone without contacting A1, causing A1 to fall, would there be a foul? No. Likewise, pulling on the ball without contact causing A1 to fall would not be a foul. Contact has to be present to judge if a foul should be called.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

If a B1 were to push on the basketball alone without contacting A1, causing A1 to fall, would there be a foul?

Yes. Foul on the ball, of course.

[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.

[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 . . .