Held Ball or Foul?
 

A1 shot rebounds to the center of the lane where A2 catches the ball with both hands directly over this head. This is immediately followed by B2 who reaches from behind and grabs the ball (no body contact) and pulls forcefully enough to cause A2 to fall directly backwards.

Do you have a held ball or has B2 created an advantage/disadvantage situation and should be whistled for a foul?

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

have to see to be sure
 

but it sounds like held ball to me

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.

I had this happen in a girls varsity game and I called a held ball. But you have to call it quick or else it will turn into a game of Twister!!!!!

Held Ball. Any contact that happens after that is ignored unless it's unsporting.

Curious if I change the situation a bit, A2 does not have clear possesion of the ball while still over his head, lets say A2 has a hand on the ball and is in the process of pulling down the rebound, but B2 grabs the ball from behind(with no body contact) and pulls A2 to the floor, you still are going to call a held ball?

No contact no foul......a personal foul has to involve contact

Agreed, it might look ugly, but there is no foul unless there is contact.

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, what would be the basis of calling a foul in this situation? What contact has occurred that you would consider a foul? Are you saying just b/c B2 is stronger than A2, B2 gets penalized with a foul?

I need to understand your thinking in this situation. I have one guy who comes to me for advice on plays. Whenever he asks my opinion I always make him explain his stance first. A lot of times he'll realize he's wrong or right just by listening to his own explanation.

Nope. A2 doesn't have possession so you can't call a held ball. B2 didn't enact or commit any bodily contact so you can't call a foul on B2. A2 didn't have player control of the ball when he went to the floor so you can't call traveling on A2. Soooooo...unless B2 also went to the floor <b>after</b> grabbing the ball, there really isn't <b>anything</b> to call afaik. Play on, McDuff, and damn be him who first cries "enuff".

You called a foul because there was contact alone? :confused: 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The issue is not advantage or disadvantage. Much of life (including sports) is about gaining an advantage or putting someone else at a disadvantage.

The issue is did the player gain an illegal advantage. The way you wrote your post I would say no.

If there is no person to person contact, nothing you just said matters. The defense gets and advantage when they steal a pass....doesn't make it a foul.

If a player is athletic enough to go over another player's head, get the ball, and pull it back....all without contacting the player's body....that player deserves the rebound. Period. If pulling the ball causes the other player to fall, that it too bad. It is either a held ball or NOTHING (depending on how easily the player from behind was able to strip the ball).

Djskinn,

You came here and asked a question. So far to a man (or woman, sorry Juulie you have not posted yet) everyone has told you very explicitly this is not a foul. All I know is you cannot call a foul without some contact. And contact can be severe and not be a foul if you simply read the rulebook. Now if you are convinced that everyone here is wrong that is your right to do so. But I will tell you that making calls like this are the reason why a lot of officials never get better opportunities (moving up, better games, better conferences, and playoffs). All you have done is tell us what happen and debate the answer.

Peace

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

Easy JR and everyone else. I'm just not afraid to ask questions. If you don't like my questions don't respond. Just wanted to be convinced. Asked other officials face-to-face and have received varying responses.

This board seems clearly convinced a held ball is simply and only a held ball, regardless of the situation, as long as there is no contact. I've got no problem with this boards interpretation and following of the good old rules book. So "peace" to you my friend.

Not "ONLY" a held ball, it could be a "NO CALL" depending on how easily the ball can be stolen away.

Yes, I could see that potentially happening. Would look really ugly, but could see an official letting them play through.

Huh?
 

You asked an either/or question and you have responded to defend your position to EVERYONE!!! I think you should not have asked the question if you want to debate the issue with EVERYONE!!! And we answered the question based on YOUR INFORMATION!!!

Peace

JR, this is forum, not just a few officials that choose to answer. Take it easy, not everyone is always going to agree with your particular assessment or answer or anyone else’s for that matter.

When I see posters that have provided thousands of comments, I think these folks probably have something intelligent to add to my favorite avocation.

Either way, I have always respected this board’s comments and opinions and will continue to frequent and pose questions for anyone to respond.

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

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?

I agree. The problem is that it's a <b>legal</b> advantage.

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.

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

Lol
 

:D :eek: 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....

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.

dj, I'm still interested in your answers.

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.

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.

Yes. Foul on the ball, of course.;)

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.

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 . . .