Pushing foul or traveling violation.

[mick]

Originally posted by egausch
Isn't this situation similar to A1 shooting a J and when in the air B1 gorilla slams and gets all ball and A1 hangs on. A1 and the ball crash to the floor. It's a held ball. No contact, no foul. That said, B1 is clearly playing the ball here. If in the original sitch, in the judgement of the officials, B1 is not playing the ball, then I could see making a case for unsportsmanlike. I don't think forcibly, pushing the ball back into the offensive player is playing the ball.
EG

EG,
In the original play, A1 is not shooting or attempting to pass... merely holding. Thus the difference.
mick

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by mick
In the original play, A1 is not shooting or attempting to pass... merely holding. Thus the difference.
mick

The other definition of "held ball" is: "Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness." I'd say that applies in this case!

[mick]

Originally posted by rainmaker

The other definition of "held ball" is: "Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness." I'd say that applies in this case!

Jewel,
yU.P., I heard of that rule also, and I call it that way. Thanks for pointing that out.

I envisioned a player batting the stationary ball short of "firmly on the ball" more like a batt, a momentary push... from the side, from the top, I don't care which direction. If you wanna call a held ball, it's your call.
I have a travel. I will not award the offense the advantage you offer for being off-balance, uncoordinated, or merely weak in any level 5th grade to CCA.
mick

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by mick
I envisioned a player batting the stationary ball short of "firmly on the ball" more like a batt, a momentary push... from the side, from the top, I don't care which direction. If you wanna call a held ball, it's your call.
I have a travel. I will not award the offense the advantage you offer for being off-balance, uncoordinated, or merely weak in any level 5th grade to CCA.
mick

I see what you're saying. I can't agree. What would a more athletic player do instead of falling over, when he/she is shoved? Stepping back would be travelling, what else is there?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by mick

Jewel,
yU.P., I heard of that rule also, and I call it that way. Thanks for pointing that out.

I envisioned a player batting the stationary ball short of "firmly on the ball" more like a batt, a momentary push... from the side, from the top, I don't care which direction. If you wanna call a held ball, it's your call.
I have a travel. I will not award the offense the advantage you offer for being off-balance, uncoordinated, or merely weak in any level 5th grade to CCA.
mick

Your last paragraph is a good description of possible scenarios of what happened. I think that we have to see the play to make a judgement about the play. The scenario that interest me is the one where B1 just pushes on the ball hard enough to knock over A1. B1 does not bat at the ball nor does he put his hands on the ball in a manner that would meet the definition of a held ball.

[mick]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I see what you're saying. I can't agree. What would a more athletic player do instead of falling over, when he/she is shoved? Stepping back would be travelling, what else is there?

Well, for starters, how about not moving the pivot foot, not falling down, not offering the ball?

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The scenario that interest me is the one where B1 just pushes on the ball hard enough to knock over A1. B1 does not bat at the ball nor does he put his hands on the ball in a manner that would meet the definition of a held ball.

Mark T.,
Well, I am thinking that if the defender's contact with the ball is anything longer than a quick strike, then we have to call a held ball.
If the defender has enough time to "power push" the ball handler off balance and to the floor, let's jump it, cuz the ball handler cannot/will not release it.
I just can't call a foul on the defender; unless, I already have the held ball and he continues pushing... then we have something.
mick

[egausch]

Most refs will wait for one good tug before calling a held ball, when both A1 and B1 have their hands on it. What if B1 purposely lets go or even pushes rather than pulls in an attempt to have A1 pull and fall backwards? I can't see a personel foul here, but maybe unsportmanlike or a travel on A1. Off the top, I would tend toward the unsportsmanlike because B1 is not directly playing for possesion of the ball.
EG

[BktBallRef]

You think a T should be called if B1 "purposely" let's go of the ball?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Mark T.,
Well, I am thinking that if the defender's contact with the ball is anything longer than a quick strike, then we have to call a held ball.
If the defender has enough time to "power push" the ball handler off balance and to the floor, let's jump it, cuz the ball handler cannot/will not release it.
I just can't call a foul on the defender; unless, I already have the held ball and he continues pushing... then we have something.
mick [/B][/QUOTE]I agree fully with mick.I think he's covered all the possible scenarios with logical answers.The one thing that you can't have is a personal foul on the defender.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Mark T.,
Well, I am thinking that if the defender's contact with the ball is anything longer than a quick strike, then we have to call a held ball.
If the defender has enough time to "power push" the ball handler off balance and to the floor, let's jump it, cuz the ball handler cannot/will not release it.
I just can't call a foul on the defender; unless, I already have the held ball and he continues pushing... then we have something.
mick [/B]

I agree fully with mick.I think he's covered all the possible scenarios with logical answers.The one thing that you can't have is a personal foul on the defender. [/B][/QUOTE]


While I agree that Mick has done a wonderful job of covering all possible scenarios with logical (not common sense) answers. A defender's "power push" is more that an impact load striking the ball and less than getting enough of a grip on the ball to cause a held ball. I still think this is one of those plays that a picture is worth one thousand words or I know what I will call when I see it.

But I was correct about one thing, it has generated a lot of discussion.

[egausch]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
You think a T should be called if B1 "purposely" let's go of the ball?

No, I think I spoke to far off the top of my head. Pushing, however, in this case, even if slight, should be considered. Is it good defense to try and imbalance the other guy, by deliberately pushing the ball toward the player? or Is this unsportmanslike behavior and outside the norms of playing the ball? What are the norms, are there any? Maybe it's simplier to say that a defender can make any play he or she wants at the ball. Pull it, push it, slap it, poke it, grab it, etc. Then it's a travel on A1 if he falls. Or maybe a defender's play at the ball should be limited toward either, directly gaining possesion (like pulling it away), directly causing the other player to loose possesion(batting it away), or causing a held ball(grabbing and holding it). Pushing would not fit here. I don't think the rules directly address this.
Personnally, I feel that pushing the ball like this, enough to cause A1 to fall, is not within the spirit of the game and is unsportsmanlike behavior, but calling a T or push does seem unbalanced or incorrect. That said, I would go with a held ball.
EG

[Ridge Wiz]

Mark T.De.
I think you can have have foul on B1. I know you said A1 was not shooting. But I do remember reading (NFHS) about a clean blocked shot attempt that is followed thru with such force that A1 is forced to the floor. The take down warrents a foul on B1. Why can't you use the same thinking if B1 forces A1 to the floor. After all, there should be more control by both players if A1 is just standing still with the ball versus a shot attempt.

On the otherhand, as it has already been mentioned, being there or a picture is worth 1k words.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Ridge Wiz
Mark T.De.
I think you can have have foul on B1. I know you said A1 was not shooting. But I do remember reading (NFHS) about a clean blocked shot attempt that is followed thru with such force that A1 is forced to the floor. The take down warrents a foul on B1. Why can't you use the same thinking if B1 forces A1 to the floor. After all, there should be more control by both players if A1 is just standing still with the ball versus a shot attempt.

On the otherhand, as it has already been mentioned, being there or a picture is worth 1k words.

Whoa!Can you find the rule reference for us that you read that says you can call a foul on a defender who makes a clean block-even if it forces the shooter to the floor?I don't think I am familiar with this one.

[Dan_ref]

I'll add my vote. I see only 2 ways for this to happen.
If B1 makes a strong move for the ball which causes A1
to fall over then I have a held ball. In this highly
likely scenario B1 will have his hand(s) on the ball long
enough for me to judge it held. The other case is when B1
only makes "instantaneous" contact, as in a right cross or a
front jump kick. Obviously this is a different animal and
someone's probably going to get ejected. IMO.