bad call almost costs kent st.

[Brad]

I have to jump in here to voice my support for the officials. The correct call was jump ball -- it is clearly evident on the replay, regardless of what the commentators say.

The defensive player had good position with his hands in the air. The offensive player (Kent State) initiated the contact, which was all hand-to-ball.

The NCAA rule for a held ball in this situation (Rule 4 -- Definitions) is that "A held ball occurs when an opponent places his or her hand(s) ... on the ball to prevent an airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try."

There is nothing in the rule that states that the offensive player had to return to the floor. Nor would that be the "common sense" interpretation. In fact, common sense would dictate that as soon as the try was prevented, the held ball should be called.

The only reason that this was a disputed call was because of the way the coaches and commentators reacted.

Did it look like a foul? Yes. At least from the first (far away) camera angle. But when shown from a better angle -- one closer to that of the official making the call -- it is clear that it was certainly not a foul.

I'm all for "common sense" but this play is not even a rules question -- it is a judgement call. There is no way that there was a foul on the play -- it was totally legitimate defense by Pitt. I don't think that you can make a case for a "no call" either because of how long the defender prevented the try from being attempted.

I'm going with the officials (and Mark) on this one.

BTW -- in real time last night, I thought that they blew it, but after the replay I thought that they got it right. Then, a few minutes ago, I went back on my TiVo to take another look and I have no doubt that the held ball, however unpopular, was the correct call.

For whatever that's worth

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Brad
The NCAA rule for a held ball in this situation (Rule 4 -- Definitions) is that "A held ball occurs when an opponent places his or her hand(s) ... on the ball to prevent an airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try."

Brad, as I've said before in this thread, I really don't have much of an opinion. I didn't study the replays. But the thing that makes it difficult for me to accept the application of the above rule is that the shot was not prevented. The Kent State player did get the shot off and it went in. That's why their bench was so upset with the held ball. They really thought they had a good basket and a foul. I think it's a stretch to say that the defender prevented the "airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try." Just my opinion.

Chuck

[Brad]

I have never been taught to wait until the offensive player returns to the floor, but I have been told that you should make the call once the try is prevented.

If the officials had no called the play, there is no doubt that the coaches would have been just as upset -- wanting a foul call!

The commentators were way out of line -- going to commercial saying things like "A phantom call goes against Kent State" -- what a bunch of hooey!

One thing that I always try to keep in mind about these plays is that I am the one sitting at home watching them on TV.

[Bart Tyson]

Brad i have to agree with ChuckElias, the shot was not prevented unless the shooter returned to the floor. The reason to shooter returning to the floor is a issue in this case is because that would mean the shot attempt has ended and therefore it is a prevented shot. i.e. jump ball.

[mick]

Originally posted by Brad

The NCAA rule for a held ball in this situation (Rule 4 -- Definitions) is that "A held ball occurs when an opponent places his or her hand(s) ... on the ball to prevent an airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try."

Brad,
I don't think the call was that easy.
I think there is a judgement of control issue that comes into play.
A1 was shooting and B1 got a hand on the ball.
Now, we judge:

Did B1 stop the release?

Did A1 take the ball back from his original presentation?

In one case we have the held ball.
In the other case we wait for the rest of the play.

mick

[BktBallRef]

I agree with Brad and don't see it any differently than a held ball with both players having both feet on the floor. To say that the shooter shot the ball after it was held is like saying, "Well, if the ref had held his whistle, one of the players would have pulled the ball away." Once the ball is held, it's a jump ball, no matter what happens after that.

[Brad]

Did B1 stop the release?

Absolutely.

Did A1 take the ball back from his original presentation?

No -- not at all... The ball was blocked so hard that it caused A1's arms to move in the direction in which B1 was blocking it. That is why it looked like a foul to the crowd, coaches, etc.

The "shot" at the end was nothing more than A1 throwing the ball up after it had already been blocked (i.e. held ball)

[mick]

Originally posted by Brad
Did B1 stop the release?

Absolutely.

Did A1 take the ball back from his original presentation?

No -- not at all... The ball was blocked so hard that it caused A1's arms to move in the direction in which B1 was blocking it. That is why it looked like a foul to the crowd, coaches, etc.

The "shot" at the end was nothing more than A1 throwing the ball up after it had already been blocked (i.e. held ball)

Brad,
I agree with your scenario on that play. Besides, that play is what the official called, and it has gone away.

I was expanding toward the hypothetical and the necessary judgement factor. My suggestion was that the mere placement of the hand on the ball does not necessarily cause the ball to be "automatically" held, based upon the wording of the rule you presented.

If that was so, then every time a slasher goes to the hoop, gets the ball touched and alters his shot, we have a held ball per the words submitted. We must judge whether it's a jump shot or a lay-up.
mick

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by mick

We must judge whether it's a jump shot or a lay-up.
mick [/B]

Mick, I was with you until you said this. I don't get this part. Help.

[mick]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson

Mick, I was with you until you said this. I don't get this part. Help. [/B]

Sorry, Bart.
No one can read my mind, ... and I'm left-handed to boot.

My attempted implication was that regardless of the action of the shooter (jump shot, or dog shot) we have to judge whether the defender had enough control on (not of) the ball to prevent the release, or only enough to cause the shooter to redirect his shot.
mick

[Bart Tyson]

OK I got IT, thanks.

[JRutledge]

a player get to attempt a shot? If the shot was stopped in the air the first time from being released, then the second time is not releavant.

Great call by the official. The original attempt was stopped. The player was on his way down from being stuffed, and then just threw the ball up in the air, and the ball went in.

After the first action you have nothing. Call what happen first and the rest does not matter.

Just a thought.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The Ohio Special Olympics State Championship Finals are this weekend in Bowling Green, Ohio, I am Director of Officials, so I have been away from this thread for too many hours and I am starting to have withdrawal symptoms.

Going back to what Brad said in his first post. Brad's post concerning the held ball happens the instant that B1 causes an airborne A1 from releasing the ball for a field goal attempt or pass is correct per NFHS. The NCAA rule is that A1 must return to the floor before the held ball occurs. Until ten years or so ago (Al Battista of Washington, DC, could tell us without looking it up) the NFHS rule was the same as the NCAA rule.

Had the play in question been played under NFHS rules, the held ball would have occured as soon as B1 prevented A1 from releasing the ball.

At the opening games of the tournament today, many of us discussed the play and it was the consensus that the official was correct, but that the NCAA should seriously consider adopting the NFHS rule, making it a held ball immediately. I know that the officials who officiate games under both codes have to remember the line for The Gambler concering their whistle: know when to hold'em and know when to fold'em.

[Tom Cook]

Originally posted by BigDave

You must be good. To take a survey from "all of america" that quickly, you've got serious talent.

Until I have the same angle as the official on the floor, I'll reserve my opinions on his judgment of the call. By the way, fans always see fouls, but they rarely see held balls. Funny how that works...

BigDave, I'd like to add a friendly amendment to your post.
Fans always see fouls that are supposedly committed on the players of THEIR team.

[jbduke]

Add this to the list of "I just don't get you guys sometimes" threads. I think that sometimes officials (myself included) want so badly to set themselves apart from ignorant fans that we end up putting ourselves on the wrong side of certain discussions.

If I am 'prevented' from doing something, then I do not in fact do that something. If I am prevented from shooting a ball, then I don't shoot the ball. The Kent State player was not prevented from shooting the ball, he was deterred. The ball was initially blocked. But for the try to be 'prevented' per se, the shooting motion would have to have ended with no shot being attempted. This did not happen. The shot was not prevented. It was deterred, it was delayed, but that is all. It was not prevented.

I think the call was missed. That doesn't make the calling official a bad official, and it doesn't make me any better that I think he missed it. We all admit our own fallability as officials, but why is it so hard for some to admit it of others? I appreciate the loyalty that officials show each other, especially when I am the beneficiary. But this is a forum where we're all looking for correct interpretations that will allow us to improve. It seem to me that in this case some are are taking semantic license in coming up with an affirming interpretation simply to continue to go against the grain of the media and average fan.

jb