Flipping over

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Not to the play in question, but it is important to newer officials who don't know it, in general.

Which is what their rule book is for.

I do not believe that every small detail of the complete rule needs to be presented in every post, especially when it is part of the rule that is not important to the topic at hand.

I tell every new official the same thing:

Just because a vet tells you something...in this case writes...doesn't mean you take it at gospel, even if I tell you something. You get your rule book, look it up and then read how I was right.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Which is what their rule book is for.

I do not believe that every small detail of the complete rule needs to be presented in every post, especially when it is part of the rule that is not important to the topic at hand.

I tell every new official the same thing:

Just because a vet tells you something...in this case writes...doesn't mean you take it at gospel, even if I tell you something. You get your rule book, look it up and then read how I was right.

Yeah, because people never go off topic in the middle of a thread.

I wasn't even going off topic - I was clarifying a very general rule reference you made on this topic. Give me a break...

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Yeah, because people never go off topic in the middle of a thread.

I wasn't even going off topic - I was clarifying a very general rule reference you made on this topic. Give me a break...

You were clarifying a part of the rule that wasn't relevant to the OP, which is what does pull things off track in so many threads when everyone goes super anal or start taking grammar shots and all of that nonsense...it isn't a personal attack on you, it's my pet peeve.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

You were clarifying a part of the rule that wasn't relevant to the OP, which is what does pull things off track in so many threads when everyone goes super anal or start taking grammar shots and all of that nonsense...it isn't a personal attack on you, it's my pet peeve.

I agree completely.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

This sounds more like a game of twister than basketball.

I am having a very difficult time picturing how a player can reach over a shoulder and get a hand under the basketball and have enough control over it to justify a held ball.

The way I read the held ball rule you have two ways of getting one:

1. By stopping a shot or pass...not the case here.

2. By having dual control of the ball where it will take undue force to gain sole control.

So #2 is the issue, and frankly I cannot see how a player behind, can get under the ball, have dual control...any control for that matter...to justify calling a held ball.

What I get from the OP is B1 got his arm pinned going for the ball, he couldn't control the ball with one hand and expect to pull it away from A1, in fact from the position B1 was in, I seriously doubt his palm was even on the ball...unless he was double jointed, and even then I have a hard time judging one hand equals two for dual control.

Without seeing it, I'm leaning for a foul on B1 and possibly a T on A1 for the judo move.

Imagine this....rebound coming towards a spot where A1 and a slightly taller B1 are waiting with B1 behind. Ball is high, roughly over A1's head. B1 gets his hand on the ball that is right above A1. A1 also reaches straight up and get's both hands on the ball and pulls it down in front. Were it not for A1's pull, B1 would have never touched A1.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Imagine this....rebound coming towards a spot where A1 and a slightly taller B1 are waiting with B1 behind. Ball is high, roughly over A1's head. B1 gets his hand on the ball that is right above A1. A1 also reaches straight up and get's both hands on the ball and pulls it down in front. Were it not for A1's pull, B1 would have never touched A1.

My rule book says HANDS not hand. Unless you are talking Dr. J versus a 10 year old, it is darn near impossible for one person to have two hands firmly grasping the ball and another with one hand on the ball and have a held ball.

One it isn't written that way, and two if I have two hands on the ball and you have one, it's isn't going to take undue force for me to get the ball away from you, so that part of the rule isn't met either.

IMO, there isn't a held ball in the OP since none of the rule is met. You either have a foul on B1, a foul on A1 or a foul on B1 and a T on A1.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

My rule book says HANDS not hand. Unless you are talking Dr. J versus a 10 year old, it is darn near impossible for one person to have two hands firmly grasping the ball and another with one hand on the ball and have a held ball.

One it isn't written that way, and two if I have two hands on the ball and you have one, it's isn't going to take undue force for me to get the ball away from you, so that part of the rule isn't met either.

IMO, there isn't a held ball in the OP since none of the rule is met. You either have a foul on B1, a foul on A1 or a foul on B1 and a T on A1.

If A1 and B1 each have a hand on the ball, there will be hands on the ball. I agree that it could mean that each player must have two but it could just as easily mean that collectively they have hands on the ball.

It also seems to me that a player that has one hand on the ball has a pretty good grip on the ball if his entire body is moved when an opponent pulls on the ball.

Consider a slightly different situation...yeah, I know it's improbably but it is to illustrate a point....

A1 holding the ball with one hand. B1 approaches and gets two hands on the ball and starts pulling. A1 maintains his grasp on the ball with one hand (sort of holding it in the crook of his elbow). A1, holding onto it so firmly, is slung around B1 as B1 continues to try to shake A1 off the ball. But A1, somehow, is able to hang on. Held ball? Or what?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

My rule book says HANDS not hand. Unless you are talking Dr. J versus a 10 year old, it is darn near impossible for one person to have two hands firmly grasping the ball and another with one hand on the ball and have a held ball.

A ball is loose on the floor. A1 dives for the ball and grasps it with two hands. B1 dives for the ball (without contacting A1) and manages to place one hand on the ball. THis often results in a held ball.

[Ref Daddy]

Originally Posted by CoachP

You got a REACH on B1, then an OVER THE BACK on B1.

WOW! Did that really happen?

Have to see it but I've seen ugly legal dribbles, would that be considered an ugly held ball? (unless A1's actions were flagrant)

Over the back? Sorry Coach ... no such thing.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

My rule book says HANDS not hand. Unless you are talking Dr. J versus a 10 year old, it is darn near impossible for one person to have two hands firmly grasping the ball and another with one hand on the ball and have a held ball.

One it isn't written that way, and two if I have two hands on the ball and you have one, it's isn't going to take undue force for me to get the ball away from you, so that part of the rule isn't met either.

IMO, there isn't a held ball in the OP since none of the rule is met. You either have a foul on B1, a foul on A1 or a foul on B1 and a T on A1.

How about A1 goes up for a layup, B1 comes in and blocks the ball to the point where both players come down with 1 HAND EACH on the ball, I'm calling a jump ball, are you not because a player or both players didn't have both hands on the ball?

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

How about A1 goes up for a layup, B1 comes in and blocks the ball to the point where both players come down with 1 HAND EACH on the ball, I'm calling a jump ball, are you not because a player or both players didn't have both hands on the ball?

That isn't relevant to the discussion, we aren't talking about a shot being stopped from release.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A ball is loose on the floor. A1 dives for the ball and grasps it with two hands. B1 dives for the ball (without contacting A1) and manages to place one hand on the ball. THis often results in a held ball.

And it often gets called incorrectly too. I don't know how many times I've seen a player reach for the ball and just touch it, then look at me waiting for the whistle.

Even if you want to read into hands as meaning any combination between opponents of 2-4, the rule still states FIRMLY and UNDUE ROUGHNESS to gain control.

Most times when the ball is on the floor we aren't talking about just a hand contacting the ball, it's usually hand, wrist and arm as well.

In the original post I see noway that B1 could get into a position coming from behind, and over the shoulder, to get a firm grasp on the ball. My partner and I tried it in the dressing room before our game last night, and I even stood on a bench to add a nearly 2 foot height difference, and it's impossible.

The human arm does bend enough to reach over and under, and grasp the ball without contact. You can't grasp the ball firmly from that position, and it wouldn't take undue roughness to get sole control by A1.

Common sense tells me what actually would occur in the OP is B1 makes the move for the ball. His chest is contacting A1's back, and the back of his arm is contacting A1's chest. Not hearing a whistle, A1 pulls his arms in, pinning B1's arm in the process, and thus making the contact more noticeable. Still not hearing a whistle A1 decides to get B1 off him by doing the little judo move. This is a lot of things, but a held ball it isn't.

[BillyMac]

Boys varsity last night. Offensive player A-1, in the corner, fakes an overhead pass to a teammate at the top of the key. Defensive player B-1 jumps with the fake and "rolls" over A-1's back. I'm watching for A-1 to lose control of the ball, travel, fall down, not complete his pass, etc., to call a foul on B-1. None of those happen. Instead, after B-1 "rolls" over A-1's back, A-1 simply passes the ball to his teammate at the top of the key who drains a three. As I'm in transition after the basket, Coach of Team A asks, "Isn't that a foul ?". I respond, "Coach, the contact didn't cause anything to happen". He says "OK". I'm sure that his team making the three helped temper his response to what he thought was a foul. I'm just glad that I "dodged a bullet".

[wildcatter]

Rule 4 section 25 Held Ball
A held ball occurs when:
Art. 2: An opponent places his/her hand(s) on the ball and prevents an airborne player from throwing the ball or releasing it on a try.

There should be no difference in the plays. In both, the defense stopped the offensive player from doing what he wanted to do. If the defender has a hand on the ball sufficient to tie up the offensive player, just call the held ball. That's the purpose and intent of the rule imo.

I always thought that the rules were written in that one hand was okay to cause a held ball in this situation because you normally shoot with one hand. But I guess that's not the case with a throw/pass.

As I'm in transition after the basket, Coach of Team A asks, "Isn't that a foul ?". I respond, "Coach, the contact didn't cause anything to happen".

That kind of comment can get you in a lot of trouble. I'd rather just be honest with the coach and say yes, i messed up, was surprised, and couldn't put the air in the whistle. Or if it's a dead ball and he asks, even a longer explanation (2 sentences instead of 1) - I was waiting for your player to hit the floor, and just so surprised your player stayed on his feet.

Actually, on second thought, as soon as he asked, i would have given him the stop sign, and warned him 5 times before T'ing him up with 30 seconds left in a close game.