Held Ball /TO?
 

A1 looses control of the ball and falls to the floor. B1 dives for the looses ball also. A1 cannot get his/her hands on the ball so he/she clamps both legs around the ball just as B1 puts his/her hands on the ball. Both players call TO at the same time.

What you got?

Player control is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. I would probably give B1 the time out and explain it that way. Then again, I would have to see the play because if A1 can have A hand on the ball at any time during this tie up, I would probably jump it.

TO granted to Team B?

I would think you'd have to have a held ball. I don't have the rule book before me, so I'm not sure if the provisions of a held ball require opposing players have their hands on ball or if lower extremities satisfy the requirement. If they both are asking for a time at or near the same time, whom do you grant it to?

If you grant the time out, the coach who may not want the time out, could argue that his player did NOT have player control of the ball. Or he or the other coach could argue that the player from team A may have kicked the ball, as they intentionally struck (grabbed/wrapped) the ball with their leg - in which case they would rather have the possession and not the timeout. Both are extreme, but I think that goes to the case of calling the held ball.

Interesting the stuff that goes on in the SW District of Ohio.

Illegal under ncaa

4.35.1 AR 94

"Looses?" aargh!

"Kicked" ball violation on A1. B gets the ball. Ask B if they still want the TO.

Seriously? I'm pretty new here, so I wasn't sure if you were joking.

Like I mentioned before, I think you could sell a 'kicked ball' because A1 has their legs wrapped around the ball. I don't believe the rule book specifies what 'striking' the ball is, but grasping it with one's legs could probably be sold that way.


Or you could go with the held ball or a technical foul for making us think wayy to much about this play. I'm sure thats unsporting. :)

He's not joking. This is a kick ball under ncaa, I gave the rule in my first post.

He's serious. Know your definitions. "Kicking is defined as intentionally striking the ball with the leg.

I stand corrected.. Apologies are in order.

Thanks for the reference Dan, I just read it.

Pretty sure he's serious and it's the smart way to go. Sounds from the description that player A intentionally contacted the ball with leg. I would think that call comes before a held ball call.

I'm familiar with this definition, I just wasn't aware that clamping the ball between your legs constituted kicking, but since it's very specific in the NCAA case play under 4.35 (Held Ball), and it specifically says it is illegal per 4-43 (Kicking), then as they say down here in the south... I've lurnt somethng today. Thanks. :D

Yes, I guess I over thought the play. Here it the rule along with a very similar case play from the 2007 NCAA Rule Book:

Section 43. Kicking the Ball
Art. 1. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg
or the foot.
Art. 2. Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a
violation.
A.R. 98. A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part of the legs. B1
attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing two hands firmly on the ball; however,
A1 applies vice-like force with the upper legs, which prevents B1 from gaining possession
of the ball. RULING: A1 has committed a violation. The intent of this rule is to prevent
a player from gaining an advantage by using any part of the leg. Although A1 did not kick
or strike the ball with any part of the leg, the player did gain an illegal advantage, which
may also lead to undue roughness. Since A1 was not holding the ball in his or her hands,
B1’s firm placement of his or her hands on the ball does not constitute a held ball.

i would call it kick as well under NFHS as well -- as this would constitute striking the ball with the leg.

Sorry "Loses"

Kick. Intentional contact with the leg is a kick. The rule makes no mention of how hard the contact must be to be illegal.

Among the meanings of strike are influence, touch, affect, and hit.

I pretty sure it says "intentionally striking" the ball with any part of the leg or foot.

I believe that this qualifies as a kicking violation as well and the definition for that has been well cited, but for those who would call a held ball, I need to refer you to the definition of a held ball under NFHS rules.

4-25
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.
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.


The situation described in the OP with one player having his legs wrapped around the ball doesn't meet the definition. A held ball is clearly an incorrect call here. I think that your two choices are a kicking violation against A1 or granting B1 a time-out.

Instructive thread!

Yes...that is why I included a few definitions of the word strike...an action which is more often interpreted to be a more forceful action but can also mean merely contact.

Now this is out of my (fiba) rule book. But it says that intentionally kick or stop the ball with any part of the leg ... is a violation.
So this would be a kick for me, and I don't care about the time out requests scince I am a fiba ref :p

They do not have timeouts in FIBA? :eek:

The point of adding the time out request was to see if anyone would offer a time out to a player (A1) with the ball trapped between the legs?
Since CB's have so aptly put it there is no Control by team A.

According to Padgett, they don't have time-outs; they just surrender.

They do, but they cannot be granted during a live ball. The coach submits the request to the table, and at the next whistle, the request is granted. (And I can't believe that I know that!)

There might be team control by Team A during a loose ball, but there's no player control. In any event, nobody who works FIBA would grant it! :D

So... in FIBA there is no technical foul provision for asking a TO which one does not have? I mean, how could you have to submit a TO request to the table without knowing whether you had a TO remaining? or you could still ask for you at the cost of a T? ...not that I really care!