High Dribble
 

If the ball bounces above a players head and dribble - you got anything?

For it to be a carry would your hand need to pause the ball or turn it in some fashion? Or ... in theory it is possible to dribble the ball above your head?

Another Myth Bites The Dust ...
 

Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or dribbles a second time. There is no restriction as to how high a player may bounce the ball, provided the ball does not come to rest in a player’s hand. Steps taken during a dribble are not traveling, including several that are sometimes taken when a high dribble takes place. It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble.

Billy - why didn't you just say, Please refer to #8 on my famous list of "misunderstood rules?" In a good mood today? ;)

I'm So Excited ...
 

Why? As a retired teacher, and a member of my local board's training committee, I always get excited about teaching rookie officials. We never know when a rookie official will join the Forum, or when a rookie official will just read our posts without joining the Forum. These rookies might not know about the "famous" list of "Misunderstood Rules".

Also, I always get excited about a chance to debunk basketball rule myths. I can't wait to type in the title words, "Another Myth Bites The Dust".

Please, it's not "my" list. I've only compiled the list, and I try to keep it updated. The list comes from many Forum members who have contributed their ideas over the past several years.

Next to the 'phantom travelling violation'...
 

...it perplexes me how often I see palming called on a player who loses 'control' of their dribble just enough to have to 'chase' the ball in mid-air with no advantage gained and the ball NOT coming to rest.

But, of course, it is pales in comparison to the amount of times that a traveling violation called on a player who never has player control.

I just thought I'd highlight the irrelevant part. Advantage is of no consequence when determining a violation.

Snaq, then check my post about 3 second scrum...
 

... and give me your feedback there too. thanks.

I fixed your statement....

Thanks. I considered doing that, but I decided against it. Wouldn't be the first mistake I made. :)
And with the post I was addressing, it's a no-call but not because of the lack of advantage.

Agreed.

Maybe 3-seconds, 10 seconds to shoot a FT, and a punched ball with no one around historically may be determined using advantage/disadvantage.

Other than that......

Agree with that too.

I'd say this one isn't necessarily advantage, but severity. IOW, if it takes 11 seconds, I'll probably think I was counting too fast and let it go. If it's 16 or 17 seconds in, and the kid is looking at his coach waiting for the steal sign, I'll call it.

I suppose if they have tired players, few reserves, and a smart coach they might try to milk free throws for extra rest time.

Basketball Or Punchball ???
 

Guilty. I actually called that this year. I've never seen the play before, and, of course, I've never seen the violation called before, and that says a lot, I've been playing, coaching, or officiating since the late sixties. After the player punched the ball, something from the dark recesses of my brain told me that it was illegal, and I blew my whistle. I immediately regretted it. I was probably the only person in the gymnasium who knew it was illegal. It was, by far, my worst call of the year. Luckily it was in a blowout game.

If that's true, then you need to fix your thinking. Call it just as you would any other violation.

2007-2008 POE 4B was palming.

Someone else will have to post the text.

Sigh ...
 

It was my worst call of the season. All my other calls, and noncalls, were perfectly correct (in my dreams).

Here's the whole, sad, story:

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...ighlight=punch

I had this kid in a game the other day. I called him for dribbling too low. :p

http://www.davidphoto.ca/media/portr...dren/drool.jpg

As a coach I don't know which I hate worse, a coach that begs for a violation of a high dribble or an official who gives it to him.

How quickly we forget the guiding principles on the first page of the rules...knowing the purpose of a rule so it can be intelligently applied...not allowing a team an advantage not intended by rule.

Can you tell me what the intent and purpose of this rule is? If not, you might want to consider some more thinking before you blow the whistle.

Those statements on the first page of the rule book tell me that the rules in the block are not actually black and white. It tells me and every other official that there is a reason for each rule and they should be applied accordingly...not blindly.

Camron,
I'm at a loss as to what point you are trying to make, but I certainly can tell you the intent and purpose of the rule against striking the ball with a closed fist. It's player safety. Quite simply the NFHS does not want players making a fist and taking swings on the court. The intent of the player may well be to strike the ball, but if he misses or another player jumps in the way and he clocks him we very likely have an injury. So the NFHS deemed that it was unsafe to attempt to play the ball in this manner and banned it. Even if there is no one around the official has a duty to penalize this action when done so that the players learn that it is unacceptable and don't get in the habit of doing it. The danger must be stamped out of the game.

Well said.

I've never seen it done, although I've seen a defender try it in a crowd. She missed the ball and hit the ball handler in the chest. I had a perfect angle, and think I had a very good read on her intent. I called the foul and started straight for her coach (AAU game).

He's whining the whole way about making that "ticky-tack" call after letting stuff go that he'd wanted me to call. I stopped him when I got there and told him what happened, and that I didn't want to hear anything from him the rest of the game (he was a real chirper). He could tell I was pissed, and he didn't say a word to me except for "Timeout" the rest of the game.

Excellent example because from another vantage point or another person's perception the action could well have been taken to be one player simply punching another in a crowd. Now we not only have an opinion to penalize with a flagrant personal foul, if this other observer is a coach, evaluator, or an official, but the possibility of retaliation and escalation to a fight if our other viewer is player in the game who has just seen his/her teammate get punched.

Right, and there's no way in he11 I was going with a no-call. Frankly, I wondered later if I should have gone with an intentional personal. What I did worked well enough for that game, but....

The point is exactly what you stated but with a different conclusion.

When there is absolutely, unequivocally no danger involved, it shouldn't be called...

...A1 (@ the BC baseline) throwing the ball in to A2 (at the BC FT line) and all other players in the FC. A2 gently bumps the ball back towards A1 with the knuckles (as in the knuckle/fist bump handshake) where A1 takes 3-4 steps inbounds to get the ball.

There is no way this should ever be called. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rule and why the rule exists. There is zero danger to anyone and it is simply irrelevant. To blow the whistle is merely being overly officious.

I agree ... this is a rule that might need to be looked at by the NFHS and how we should call it. I have called striking the ball with the fist twice in 20 years of calling games.

So if A2 gently kicks the ball back to A1 that would be fine with you as well?

Sorry Camron, but by failing to enforce the rules because you don't deem that it is necessary in a given situation, you run the risk of having the game degenerate into a farce. That is exactly what happened in the other thread started by Y2Koach about the official refusing to call a palming violation.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=46397

Don't be silly. A kick is not a safety rule.

Now tell me...

1. How many multiple fouls have you called?
2. How many times have you called both fouls when a shooter is hit across the arms then crashes into a defender?
3. Do you call 3 seconds for a player with 1 foot inside the lane at the FT line for 3.1 seconds?

Those are rules too and there are case plays from the NFHS detailing the calls. Unless you can tell me that you do so every time, you have absolutely no credibility in your arguments. You're doing the very thing you're saying I can't do.

Respectfully wondering how you would handle a sitch with a handicapped player( which I've seen on the high school level) who had a deformed hand permanently in a fist. By your definition it would also be a violation?

For those who argue not to make such a call, I would direct you to the very similar situation in which the thrower violates while making a throw-in from the backcourt endline. For years there were numerous officials who advocated ignoring such violations, but the NCAA came out a couple of seasons ago with a clear statement that these violations must be called regardless of whether or not there is defensive pressure.

The bottom line is that as an official it is your job to make the teams play within the constructs of the rules. Doing otherwise is unacceptable.

You Say NCAA, I Say NFHS, Let's Call The Whole Thing ...
 

So did the NFHS:

9.2.5 Situation: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team.
Ruling: A violation in both (a) and (b).
Comment: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

I agree with Nevaderef on this situation. Boundary line calls are pretty much black and white.

However, how about the following violations, Nevadaref? Would you call them every time they occur, keeping in mind the Spirit and Purpose of the Rules, advantage/disadvantage, the Tower philosophy, the level of play, the time remaining in the game, and the score (middle school, blowout, 20 seconds left)? Or would you "make the teams play within the constructs of the rules"?

1) A free throw shooter uses eleven seconds before releasing his, or her shot.
2) A player gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow.

Unlike the black and white, as defined by a NFHS case book play, boundary line rules, I believe that these rules present gray areas, also known as Spirit and Purpose of the Rules, advantage/disadvantage, and the the Tower philosophy, to the officials assigned in that game.

1. My take is that ten is long enough. If I have a good count going, which I confess that I may not have every single time on this play, I think I would make the call if I ever reached ten, which has never happened in 22 years. If you're gonna give him eleven, why not 12? Why not 13? I say 10 is plenty.

2. One of the first things I learned many years ago is that if you keep a close watch on three seconds, you won't see much of anything else. I rarely have a count on a lane violation, but merely observe that a player has been there
"too long." I think it is natural to give more slack to a player standing passively at the free throw line than to the player who is actively working for position deep in the paint to box out or post up.

Thanks...
 

Thanks for your straightforward, honest, practical answers to my questions. Please note that I never said in my post what the calls should be, all I said is that there may be "gray areas" open to interpretation, which may mean different interpretations made by different officials, also depending on the level of the game, score, and time remaining.

One picky point. I've been officiating for 27 years and have observed free throw shooters going past the ten count, even a slow ten count, many, maybe many, many times. Unless you're a rookie official, which by your intelligent, and educational, posts, I believe that you are not, I can't believe that you've never had a player go over a slow ten count.

Billy, maybe it's a regional thing, but I've never seen it in the two regions I've worked.

Remember, This Requires A Visible Count ...
 

It ???

Never seen the violation called, or never seen a free throw shooter take longer than ten seconds real time, or ten hand flicks, to release the try?

I've never seen the violation called, I've never called the violation, but I personally have gotten up to twelve hand flicks several times without calling the violation, and know of partners, and others on my local board that I have observed, who have done the same thing. How long would I continue to count, and flick, without blowing my whistle? I don't know, I haven't gotten there yet, twleve is probably the highest I've gotten to, but I'm sure I'll know, or hope I'll know, when it happens.

My count's probably a bit slow on this one, but I honestly don't remember ever getting to 10. It may have happened once, but I don't recall.
I've also never seen it called by another official.

Please don't confuse me with JAR. :)

My answer to your questions is that situations that do not involve a timing device, a line painted on the court, or a clear, observable act by a player will be handled with some leniency simply because individuals count at different speeds or focus upon different aspects of play. So for your specific examples:
1. I tend to count to ten fairly slowly on a FT attempt.
2. I probably do not notice a player who is lost in the FT lane for a couple of seconds because I am focused on the players who are not running around with their heads cut off and are making an important play. The munchkin at the side of the lane with one foot in it is likely out of my field of vision, but even if I do observe this player, my count is likely less precise.

You seem to be softening by the grey phrase 'within the constructs of the rules', at least I read it that way.

End line inbounds violation after a basket with no pressure can be an advantage to team A as they are trying to run in quick transition.


So, regarding my original question about player with deformed 'fist', violation or not?

I vote for "not". Just like I wouldn't expect a cop to give a parking ticket to a handicapped driver using a handicapped parking space.

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

Or maybe a windmill?

Well, I certainly wouldn't either. There has to be a level of common sense.

It's a basketball court, not a court of law.

Where? Let me at it!

True enough, but my point is that we make allowances for handicapped all the time in the interest of fairness.

We don't make those allowances, however, for individuals who are not handicapped.

Not the best analogy, admittedly.

Hence why I ignored his 3rd world hypothetical.

Snags I do agree with your point. When I made the court reference it was not directed at you, your analogy was a good one.
The player in question to my knowledge never had the violation called on him. Obviously he used his other hand predominantly and would occasionally do a crossover with bad hand.

"A player shall not travel with the ball, as in 4-44, intentionally kick it, as in 4-29, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below."

Definition of strike "to deliver a sharp blow, as with the hand, fist, or weapon"

Does this constitute a sharp blow?

I know how I'd call it.

I believe "strike" is used to define kick as well, but it is not so narrowly defined there. A "kick" is generally called with any purposeful contact between a player's moving leg and the ball.