Input please. Bktballref said that the below is ok on another thread. I agree with others and say it is traveling... Input please... Thanks.. Others on the thread responded they feel it is traveling too. I am familiar with rule 4-12-1. In my eyes a tap described below is holding the ball.

"Sprint down the court with hands at waist level and tap the ball back and forth from left hand to right never letting the ball come to rest. You could run circles around your opponents never letting the ball come to rest in either hand, as long as you tap it back and forth.

I say this is traveling because the player is in control of the ball. It is a controlled tap. This is traveling. Bktballref said this is not traveling and he would allow it. No such thing as a controlled tap..

Thanks in advance........

i believe you mistook the info bktballref gave, this is traveling.

Sounds like walking to me.

Guys,check out R-4-43.It says "Travelling(running with the ball)is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while HOLDING the ball".In BBRef's post he said "never letting the ball come to rest".Are you ever holding the ball when it never comes to rest?Obviously not. BBRef had the right call-no travelling.

Sounds like running to me. :)

Jurassic Ref, Are you really going to let a player
 

do the following:


"Sprint down the court with hands at waist level and tap the ball back and forth from left hand to right never letting the ball come to rest.You could run circles around your opponents never letting the ball come to rest in either hand, as long as you tap it back and forth.

and no I didn't miss quote Bktballref here is the copied answer by him:

>>>>Your telling me you are going to allow a tall player to tap the ball over his head while running down the court with control. You say why would he do this, I say because your not calling traveling. This is control of the ball, so it is traveling. Believe me it has happened. Whether you think it is sensible or not for a player to do this, if he does, are you going to let him?

Yes, I am absolutely going to let him do it because it's not against the rules.

This is your exact,original post above.YOU quote BBRef as saying "never letting the ball come to rest".Then you say this is travelling.If the ball doesn't come to rest,the player CAN'T be holding it,and therefore CAN'T travel.That's what the rule I stated(R4-43) says.If you think different,please cite a rule,any rule,to back up your contention.

I also agree with teh explanation below that was
 

posted as an explanation.

"Clearly tapping the ball in the manner you decribed is an advantage for a person and should be called a travel. That is the intent of the travel rule. Rule 2-3 can be used to clarify this. That is exactly why it is there. Clearly the player is in control of the ball by tapping it in such a manner to advance down the court. The rules cannot be all inclusive. Everything cannot be spelled out and every possible word for control cannot be used. 2-3 is there for referee judgement on items that are not specifically covered."

"Websters definition of holding is "to take and keep with hands" it doesn't say anything has to be at rest. So I can screen you with by body while I tap the ball up in the air and I am holding it away from you."

Clearly this is not difficult to understand. I can not believe you are really going to allow this in a game. Not trying to be sarcastic, I just do not understand how you would allow this. Please don't just say there is no EXACT verbage in teh rules that says you can't do this... THE INTENT OF THE RULES.

Self,I suggest you contact your local rules interpreter and get his/her ruling.It's pointless to argue this any further.

No need to get upset. I am not arguing.
 

I am just a little shocked. You still have not answered. Would you allow the below without calling traveling... Yes or No?

"Player sprints down the court with hands at waist level and taps the ball back and forth from left hand to right never letting the ball come to rest. You could run circles around your opponents never letting the ball come to rest in either hand, as long as you tap it back and forth.

Oh, my !
 

Self,
No they would not allow that.
mick

Trust your partner.

Bktballref already said he would
 

Now jurasssic Ref is basically saying he would. Asking me to talk to rules interpreter.

This one is a no brainer. For your info Jurassic Ref I consider myself a rules expert and have enough confidence that both IAABO and NFHS will call this traveling or an illegal dribble. Most definitely a violation.

What state do you call in?

[Edited by Self on Feb 24th, 2002 at 01:03 PM]

Re: Bktballref already said he would
 

Self,
I am more convinced than ever that this is an illegal dribble, and not traveling per NFHS.
And, like you, I think we can make the judgement of whether the player who batted the ball was in control.
Once we establish player control (using judgement), then we can go to, or in this case "limp to", the dribble rule and the fact that the player batted the ball twice before it hit the floor.
mick

self:

"Websters definition of holding is "to take and keep with hands" it doesn't say anything has to be at rest. So I can screen you with by body while I tap the ball up in the air and I am holding it away from you."

What do you think TAKE and KEEP mean, if not holding the ball?

I haven't worked basketball in years, but have found my FED 1993-94 Case Book. Here's what it says:

4.15.4D. Play: (a) A1 tosses the ball from one hand to the other while keeping his or her pivot foot in contact with the floor; or (b) A1 throws the ball over the head of B1 and then takes several steps before catching it. Ruling: Legal in (a), but a traveling violation in (b). In (b), A1 may not move his or her pivot foot without violating. Since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is not part of a dribble nor is it the start and end of a dribble.

Therefore, passing or batting the ball back and forth while moving, without the ball touching the floor, is a VIOLATION.

Bob

bluezebra, read a few more of teh post..
 

I am in agreement. It is a violation whether traveling or illegal dribble it is a violation. I have said that in all the above.

Jurassic Ref and Bktballref have said it was a legal play.

The holding verbage was semantics. I do not feel teh rules book needs to provide every word for holding for me to understand controlling the ball. I am holding it if it is at rest between my knees, I am holding it if I am resting it in my palm, I am holding it away from my opponent if a am tapping the ball from left hand to right hand. I am controlling the ball and the play described is a violation.

unbelievable!

Lets remember
 

People!
Here is a classic example of the intent of the rules. Even if this motion is not specifically prohibited according to the rules - the intent of the rules definitley does make this action illegal.

We should remember that just because an action/event is not specifically prohibited, it does not been that it is allowed by the rules.

Let's use our heads a bit.....

Exactly
 

Thanks OZ, it just amazes that this can be confusing. That is why 2-3 is there. To me it is the common sense rule. The rules cannot spell out every possible verbage, adverb or action. We have to be able to look at the intent of the rule and use our judgement. Thanks for your input...

Bktballref?
 

Do you not agree that written rules cannot be all inclusive of the english language and all verbage cannot be used to describe a play. Is it not judgement then that can be used?

By the way I have seen this play.

Also what board and which post did I disapoint you. If so I apologize....

First, let's not use the word tap. A tap is an attempt to score a basket. Let's use the word bat.

A player can bat a rebound or pass into the air one time without establishing player control. Do we agree?

A player can bat the ball into the air a second time without establishing player control. Do we agree?

In your mind, how many times does he have to bat the ball before he establishes player control? Is there a magical number?

I will continue to allow the player to bat the ball until he holds the ball or begins a dribble. If the ball comes to rest in one of his hands while he is batting the ball, I now have control. But if he continues to bat the ball while moving his feet and he doesn't establish player control, <B>I have nothing!</B>

4-12-1
A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

As I stated on the GAVSV board, this is a ridiculous play. I've never seen it happen and it's not going to happen. A player can move down the floor much faster and under more control by dribbling the ball.

BTW, it's even more ludicrous to call this an illegal dribble. A dribble is batting the ball to the floor. Where, in this thread, was it stated that the ball was batted to the floor? Please site the rule that says you can have an illegal dribble without dribbling.

[Spelling corrected! :)]

[Edited by BktBallRef on Feb 24th, 2002 at 05:24 PM]

Re: No need to get upset. I am not arguing.
 

I haven't answered because I just got in the damn door.If you go back and read my replies,I have definitively stated TWICE already that it isn't travelling if the ball doesn't come to rest.BBRef specifically stated that the ball DIDN'T come to rest in the above.For the record--NO TRAVELLING!I also agree with BBRef's response and explanation above,too!
Btw,I just flipped on the Duke/St.Johns a few minutes ago to catch the score.I saw a Duke player tip a rebound,take a couple of steps,and then he grabbed his own tip.He then dribbled the ball.Guess what?No whistle from any of the 3 refs.Using your logic,it should have been a contolled tip and a travel.Guess they missed that one.

Tony,
I think we were talking about:

<i>"Player sprints down the court with hands at waist level and taps the ball back and forth from left hand to right never letting the ball come to rest. You could run circles around your opponents never letting the ball come to rest in either hand, as long as you tap it back and forth." </i>

Assuming player control, and then that the player bats the ball while in control... and then bats the ball again before it hit the floor I determined that I could live with an illegal dribble violation based on the difference between 4.15.4D (Dribble violation) and 4.15.4E (Moving violation).

I know you will call a violation. Which would you choose?

mick

Re: Re: Bktballref already said he would
 

Self,
I am more convinced than ever that this is an illegal dribble, and not traveling per NFHS.
And, like you, I think we can make the judgement of whether the player who batted the ball was in control.
Once we establish player control (using judgement), then we can go to, or in this case "limp to", the dribble rule and the fact that the player batted the ball twice before it hit the floor.
mick
[/B][/QUOTE]Mick,a player establishes "player control"only by actually holding the ball or dribbling it.If you judge at any time that a player gains control,I agree with you and you don't have to limp to the dribble rule at all.The dribble rule certainly now applies,as does the various travelling rules.The major question is "does a player gain control while tipping or batting a ball if it never comes to rest".Tony used an extreme case to illustrate that,but specifically said the ball didn't come to rest..A simpler case is a ballplayer tipping a rebound to himself-once or even a couple times.If the ball didn't come to rest,there's no violation.If you judge that the ball did come to rest,and he tips it again and goes and gets it(taking a coupla steps),yup its a violation.Don't know whether that makes any sense to you,podner,but it's the best I can do after the afternoon I've had.:D

So can I run the length of the court with the ball pinned between my elbows?
Since you need to use your hands to hold something - this must be allowed, but common sense demands that you call a travel.

Two words people:

Common Sense!

First, let me make it clear that in the original thread that Self is referring to, we cannot and did not assume player control. The entire question was based on Play #4 from my Traveling Quiz.

Play #4 - A1 is in position for a rebound. He taps the rebound into the air to prevent a defender from gaining possession. He taps the ball into the air 4 times and takes 5 steps while trying to keep the ball away from the opponent. Is this a violation? Why or why not?

In this play, PC has not been established. Now, if this player continues to bat the ball as he's running down the floor without ever having establishing PC, I have nothing.

In the play you describe, with PC having been established, I have traveling. In 4.15.4D, the play starts out, "While dribbling...". That's why it's an illegal dribble. In 4.15.4E, it's traveling because the ball has not been dribbled. The ruling even calls it traveling. In your play, I do not have any illegal dribble since the ball has never been dribbled.

Even though you're using sarcasm, let me answer your question without using sarcasm. That's a stupid and immature response to the situation. It's not necessary to hold the ball with both hands to have control. But it's for d@mn sure that you do have to have control to travel. Having the ball pinned between the arm and the chect is certainly not the same as batting it. Of course, under FEEBLE rules, who know? It may be GT.

There's some sarcasm for you. :(

[Mention of AARef is removed}

[Edited by BktBallRef on Feb 24th, 2002 at 09:03 PM]

Duane,
Now, you know these folks have common sense.
This is an academic point that we are trying to work out without the benefit of a determination by our Fed bosses.
mick

Tony,
I was wondering where that thread was that self was talking about.
Your Play #4 : Dennis Rodman made his living doing that and finally getting the ball. No problem here.

In my play, I designated the first tap, after control, as the start of the dribble; because after establishing control like that such an action, the bat, can only be a dribble or a pass. And since the player batted to himself, it was not a pass, hence it became an illegal dribble.
mick

mick,

You can't have an illegal dribble unless the ball has been dribbled.
In your play, you have nothing unless the player picks up his pivot foot and then puts it down again or starts a dribble. I such a case, you would have traveling.
Your play cannot be an illegal dribble since the ball has not been dribbled.

TH

:) The dribble starts when the ball is batted to the floor (it doesn't say straight down, or sideway, or not up). Then the ball was batted again, not caught as in 4.15.4E, but batted again as in 4.15.4D. This is a violation of dribble and not a violation of movement in a semblance of Cases 4.15.
Hey, I'm just using the tools that are available. ;)
mick

mick,

"Hello? McFly? Anybody home?" :)

4.15.4 SITUATION D
While dribbling: ....

This means that the player was dribbling the ball.
The ball had already touched the floor.

(a) A1 bats the ball over the head of an opponent, runs around the opponent, bats the ball to the floor and continues to dribble;

Then, he bats the ball twice before it touches the floor.
It's an illegal dribble because the ball touched the floor, and then he touched the ball twice before it hit the floor again.

In 4.15.4E, the ball never touches the floor.
In the play that you described, the ball never touches the floor.
That's why it's traveling and not an illegal dribble.

Understand?

Not original question I know.
 

Guys first I am not AARef from this other board. Second I did change the question a bit to emphasize my point. The point is on a rebound Player taps ball from the air(never holding it), turns now taps it again, slowly reduces the tap/slap bat to a back and forth motion between hand and starts running down the court, spins around opponent while tapping back and forth, backs into the lane while tapping, by now you have an atrocity of the game. Both Bktballref and Jurassic ref said they have nothing on this. I realize I over emphasized the question. The point is they have nothing. Whether it is semantics or not this is clearly a violation and not the intent of the rule. I can not believe how they could let this go and have nothing. This is not what Dennis Rodman did. I know the difference. I would use judgement and know it may not be the first tap.(definitely not) nor the second, but at somepoint during the spin move to the basket I have traveling. This is called judgement and intent of the rules. Does this happen often, NO, could this happen, YES. If it does then you have to use common sense on how you are going to handle it and that would be by calling traveling.

So, again, I ask you.....
 

A player can bat a rebound or pass into the air one time without establishing player control. Do we agree?

A player can bat the ball into the air a second time without establishing player control. Do we agree?

In your mind, how many times does he have to bat the ball before he establishes player control? Is there a magical number?

The Drag
 

No magical number, use common sense.

I have come up with the "drag.":

The rules are inadequate to cover this situation; however, to maintain the spirit and intent of the rules, I have come up with a new term: the "drag."

Definition: PLAYER CONTROL is holding or dribbling [or dragging] a live ball while in-bounds.

My Definition: DRAGGING is purposeful and controlled tossing, batting, or setting the ball away from the body and then re-contacting the ball.

DRAGGING is equivalent to HOLDING the ball for the purposes of the rules. If the pivot is moved while DRAGGING then the player has traveled.

If dragging were a loss of player control, then a stationary player could avoid a 5 second closely guarded count by simply tossing the ball from hand to hand.

CONFIRMATION

Slider is zimp and zimp is Slider.

Re: The Drag
 

While I agree this should be a violation, please tell me that you're not going to start using this in your games!!

Coach: How was that a travel?
Slider: He dragged the ball, coach.
C: Dragged the ball? What f*#&ing rule is that?
S: 11-2 in my rulebook.

That explains a lot.

Of course, it took me until 2 or 3 months ago to realize that TH and BktBallRef are one and the same. (I've been posting on both forums for about 2 1/2 years.)

Additional closing arguments will be over there.
mick

No magic number
 

I will use my judgement on when I think the player has control of the ball, and it could be while he is still tapping it if he is running down the court doing this and spinning around opponents.

I will use common sense and rule 2-3 since this play is not described in the rules or case.

Just as I determine advantage disadvantage on a foul. It is my judgement.

Wow! :D

As I said earlier this evening on the "other" discussion board. I think that BktBallRef (TH) has done an excellent job of presenting the rules and casebook plays that cover the situation. And I agree with everything he has said. He makes all of the same points that I would have made. But I think that we both agree that we personally would not make the call unless we actually saw the play. I have this gut feeling the the play in the original posting is one of those one in ten million plays.

Thanks Mark. That's what I've said all along. This is a play that you'll never see. Thoeretically, it is possible that it could happen and by rule, it would be legal. As officials, we can't go throwing around 2-3 because we don't like the way a play looks.

Realistically, if you judge that the ball has been held by the player who is batting the ball, then you can establish PC. But we can't just ignore the rules, invoke 2-3 and say that it traveling. A player who has not had control of the ball cannot travel.

I'm done.

Yup,finally confirmed!:D

Incredible
 

Making a very simple question difficult. No one said we are just throwing around rule 2-3 anytime we want to. No one said we are going to ignore any rules. Now you are saying things that have not been said.

Is a player in control of a ball when he is spinning it on his finger. I say yes, but he is not holding or dribbling.... Again it goes back to judgement, every word for control can not be established. Back to Bob statement which you agreed with, "hand under ball he has control", I have no problem with this. But he never said he was holding the ball. Only that he felt that hand under ball established control. That is all I have been saying all along. At some point in tapping ball back and forth from left to right hand and I am going to say the player has established control of the ball and after that it will be traveling. What is the difference?

This was said 30 posts ago. That I felt the player has established control. The argument was he has to be holding or dribbling. You just agreed that hand under ball establishes control. Bob Jenkins never said he was holding it, never siad the ball came to rest. Again this is just semantics and making a ridiculously easy play difficult. Could this play ever happen... YES. When it does you are going to at some point say the player has established control and call traveling.. RIGHT? Whether we have to see it or not is a mute point. At some point is a player does this you are going to call traveling. Why is this so difficult to say?Again this is just common sense....

[Edited by Self on Feb 25th, 2002 at 06:22 AM]

I came to this same conclusion about 3 or 4 weeks ago when Slider came up with another of his "drag"-type solutions. Inventive, I give him credit for that! :)

By the way, I knew you were TH all along. ;)

Chuck

Re: Incredible
 

Self,if you've got last year's rulebook,look up the POE on "palming".Note the sentence--Quote-"the key to officiating this play consistently and correctly is to determine if the ball has come to rest(4-15-4B)"-Unqoute.If the ball comes to rest,then the dribbling and travelling rules are now applicable.If it doesn't come to rest,you don't apply them.If the hand comes under the ball,of course you got the dribbler holding the ball at rest.Otherwise,you can never call palming/carrying the ball.Same concept is used in the other sitch.If the ball comes to rest in the hand,you now have player control.If it doesn't come to rest,NO player control.It's not semantics.It's written in the rules,and not 2-3 either.
Btw,that was my last gasp on this one.Have fun!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 25th, 2002 at 08:47 AM]

Re: Incredible
 

In my opinion, if a player allows the ball to come to rest with hie hand under it, the ball is spinning on his finger, or the ball is spinning in his hand, he is holding it. Nowhere have I said or have I ever read that the ball had to be at a stop for it to be held. Read JR's post below. He makes a correct comparison below about palming and the ball coming to rest.

Have you ever officiated volleyball? The same situation exists. As long as the player is using finger action to bat the ball, she has not held it. But if the hand is under the ball and she lifts it, she has held it. This sitation is no different.

Yes, I did agree with Bob and I've explained why above. And you didn't say this 30 posts ago. This is only your second post in this thread, on the same page as your first. If you're referring to zimp, on the other board, I gotta tell you: I don't always read zimp posts.

Re: Re: The Drag
 

Is that better than:

Coach: How was that a travel?
Mark: He did something that I agree is a violation.
C: What f*#&ing rule is that?
M: 11-2 in my rulebook.

----------------

It seems we need some term for this kind of control; we wouldn't be having this stupid argument about control if "dragging" were defined in the Rules Book.

[Edited by Slider on Feb 25th, 2002 at 11:21 AM]

guys look at the big picture and do not microdot this play. call the original scenario a travel and be done with it. this play is only difficult if you make it difficult.

Ah,the legendary "BIG PICTURE"!So far,crew,you have:
(a)told us to change a foul call from the player that actually committed it to a player who didn't do anything.
(b)told us to ignore specifically written rules on what is a travel.
I can hardly wait for the next installment of the "BIG PICTURE"!

Re: Re: Re: The Drag
 

Uh, zimp/slider, note that my message stated that this should be a violation - not that it actually is!

Don't forget (c) slapping the backboard while the ball is on the rim is BI.

To hopefully end this
 

Overall this is semantics, Bob never said palming he never said ball comes to rest. He merely said hand under ball. Yet some are agreeing that this established control. He never said it came to rest. You can have hand under the ball and only touching it with your fingertips while tapping it slightly up in teh air.

But to end this and to help everyone feel I am not missusing rule 2-3. I will determine in the play I described when the ball rested on the fingertips for .1 second that at that .1 second he began the act of holding and now he has control. No it may not be on the first or second tap, or ever. But in some cases that .1 second on the fingertips will be enough for me to rule the player now has control... It will be my judgement... Now I can call a travel. So I hope we are fine now.....

Re: To hopefully end this
 

Self,that was all that we were trying to tell you.As soon as you determine player contol,the player is bound by the travelling and dribbling rules.Hopefully this mother is now buried forever!

Newbie. Lost. Zimp is Slider. TH is BstBallRef. There's another forum. Where is it? And I know that it's not possible that it's as good as this one.

They both have their "charm".
The other is more ....
You'll understand.


http://www.gmcgriff.com/refonline/

Oh, boy, mick's starting on the poetry!

They both have their "charm". The other is more ....
You'll understand.

The other is not nearly as easy to navigate or am I missing something?

You're not missing anything. The other is out-a-control and it has nothing to do with the navigation.

I did have a few good laughs though. The responses to Mark D's website were priceless!

BTW, you're "mick" on that other board right? Yeah, took
a while, but I finally figured it out. Cagey, real cagey.
;)

other boards
 

Dan,
Yeah, it doesn't matter which board.
2x4, 1x6, 3x12, Glu Lams, TJIs.
As Danny Glover said, "Nailed 'im."
mick