Jump ball or out of bounds?

[hoopguy]

I have not seen a convincing argument for the held ball vs out of bounds. Still unsure about the correct ruling but still leaning toward out of bounds. To dispute some of the points above for held ball.

The player must land before blowing the wistle for jump ball. Case 4.25.2 supports this. Common sense also supports this. Try blowing the whistle for a jump ball on the touch for block and then the offensive player while still airborne pumps and makes the shot. You call jump and see what your evaluator or assignor thinks of that call. good luck!!

Traveling -
Player lifts pivot foot and dribbles the ball out of bounds. I call out of bounds. Nothing in rules or case refer to whether this is traveling or oob so a case could be made either way but an oob call will be the easier call to sell.

Player jumps in the air and lands out of bounds. I call out of bounds not traveling.

Another argument for the out of bounds call, case 4.23.3a - 'player called for blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.' My argument is that the defensive player is out of bounds and therefore can't get the jump ball call using the same reasoning as the legal guarding postion. To call jump ball you would be rewarding a defensive player who is not a legal defender.

What if defensive player b1 is standing out of bounds and never jumps and is tall enough to block the shot and player a1 comes down with the ball. This is obviously oob. Not like the op but neither are the lifting the pivot foot and dribling in bounds or jumping and landing in bounds with the ball.

At this point I do not see a clear rules interpretation of this call and I think both arguments are valid but I am leaning toward oob.

[Adam]

It's the same rule reference that tells you to call a held ball if a shooter has his shot capped and returns to the floor with it. You don't call him for a travel even though you don't blow the whistle until he returns.

In this play, it doesn't matter where the shooter lands. He can land OOB or IB and it's still a held ball. The held ball happens while he is in the air, not when he lands; as evidenced by the fact that it's still a held ball even if the defender doesn't have his hand on it when the shooter lands.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

The player must land before blowing the whistle for jump ball. Case 4.25.2 supports this.

Really? According to 4.25.2 in my casebook, the whistle is blown for a held ball when the player lands, or, when the ball drops to the floor. The casebook play further states that the held ball, and thus a whistle, occurs when the airborne player is prevented from releasing the ball to pass, or try for goal.

4.25.2 SITUATION: A1 jumps to try for goal or to pass the ball. B1 leaps or reaches and is able to put his/her hands on the ball and keep A1 from releasing it. A1: (a) returns to the floor with the ball; or (b) is unable to control the ball and it drops to the floor. RULING: A held ball results immediately in (a) and (b) when airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball to pass or try for goal.

In addition, 4-25 states that a held ball occurs when 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 rule doesn't mention anything about the airborne player returning to the floor.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

I have not seen a convincing argument for the held ball vs out of bounds. Still unsure about the correct ruling but still leaning toward out of bounds. To dispute some of the points above for held ball.

The player must land before blowing the wistle for jump ball. Case 4.25.2 supports this. Common sense also supports this. Try blowing the whistle for a jump ball on the touch for block and then the offensive player while still airborne pumps and makes the shot. You call jump and see what your evaluator or assignor thinks of that call. good luck!!

I agree with the timing on this call. I think most officials would. Although, I'm not entirely sure why. If the defender clearly prevents the release of the ball, but the offensive player is able to "play through" this and still get a shot off ... we have no whistle. I'm not sure what rule basis there is for this. But it's the norm. Perhaps it has to do with once the shooter returns to the floor with the ball, then we're forced to make a call? So we apply that timing to all such calls? But clearly the judgment about whether the defender really prevented the release, or whether the shooter could have gotten a shot off and was only intimidated or distracted by the contact on the ball, that judgment is clearly formed based on the activity that happens before the shooter returns to the floor.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

Traveling -
Player lifts pivot foot and dribbles the ball out of bounds. I call out of bounds. Nothing in rules or case refer to whether this is traveling or oob so a case could be made either way but an oob call will be the easier call to sell.

Player jumps in the air and lands out of bounds. I call out of bounds not traveling.

A major difference here is that in both cases the same player has committed both violations. The traveling came first, but OOB is the obvious call. But the result is the same, so nobody cares which one you call.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

Another argument for the out of bounds call, case 4.23.3a - 'player called for blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.' My argument is that the defensive player is out of bounds and therefore can't get the jump ball call using the same reasoning as the legal guarding postion. To call jump ball you would be rewarding a defensive player who is not a legal defender.

Apples and oranges here. Fouls and violations are not the same thing. And, in fact, is held ball is not a violation at all. With a held ball there is no guarding position to consider, legal or otherwise. Another set of rules comes into play if one, or both, players who have held the ball are OOB.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

What if defensive player b1 is standing out of bounds and never jumps and is tall enough to block the shot and player a1 comes down with the ball. This is obviously oob. Not like the op but neither are the lifting the pivot foot and dribling in bounds or jumping and landing in bounds with the ball.

Yes, this is clearly OOB. The defender has committed a violation. And since a held ball is not a violation, there is only one violation committed.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

At this point I do not see a clear rules interpretation of this call and I think both arguments are valid but I am leaning toward oob.

The deciding factors for me include 1) The held ball and the oob are two separate plays and clearly one occurs first. 2) If you need proof you need only consider that if the player could have gotten the pass off, there would have been no oob violation. Therefore you have, if not a cause and effect relationship, then at least a clear order of events. 3) Unlike the examples you cite where the same player commits both violations, in this case the defense "committed" the first act, leading to the offense "committing" the second act. This is more like a situation where the defender's push causes the ball handler to travel, or a bump by the defender causes the ball handler to stumble and step on the oob line. In those cases we're clearly expected to either go get the foul and ignore the violation, or to ignore both and play on. But it's always "wrong" to call the violation and ignore the cause. 4) A held ball is not a violation, and the result is not the same as the oob. Which you call matters. "The arrow" can be a very emotional issue with some coaches especially. You "take away the arrow" and you may very well hear about it. From an angry coach, or from an evaluator. And when that moment comes, what will be your clear and compelling reason for not going with the held ball.

Edited to add: In the traveling or oob examples, you've gone with the "expected" call. This is because everybody saw the OOB, but very few if any saw the travel. But what if you went with the travel? You're argument of "the expected call" really is based on people's expected reaction to the call. Even though the travel is not expected, everybody is either going to say, "Huh? Whatever. Same thing." or, "Hmmm, okay. That's right. Same thing, though." Either way, there is widespread acceptance of the call because the outcome is exactly the same as the judgment they made in their own minds.

With this play, even if those watching initially cheer, thinking it was a good defensive play, it won't take long for somebody to say the words "jump ball" and "isn't that like capping the shooter?" Then what? The discussion among those you hoped to pacify by making the "obvious call" will go several different directions at once. The widespread acceptance that it was the right call will disappear. And what saved you on the travel v. oob call, instant recognition that it's the "same thing" isn't there to bail you out. In other words, "upon further review" it's not an easy sell at all. Mostly confusion will remain in the wake of an oob call here.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

But from your own MSG7 you were able to release it, thus you were not prevented thus no held ball.

Which is why you need to wait to blow your whistle and NOT to immediately call a held ball.

Remember, you posted this earlier:

Originally Posted by ILMalti

If the shooter attempt to release the ball for a try or the throw was prevented, what happened after is moot. Held Ball...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

My thought is that the oob would be correct because you would need to land to get to the jump ball ruling. Of course that was my original call as well, so my bias shows.

What you ruled in red is incorrect. Why you ruled that in blue is also wrong.

People are often reluctant to change their opinions. They hold onto strange beliefs without reason simply because they are their beliefs.

Now get a tight grip because there is about to be a storm of criticism coming your way.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Which is why you need to wait to blow your whistle and NOT to immediately call a held ball.

Except that the case book says to do exactly the opposite of what you write.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4.25.2 SITUATION: A1 jumps to try for goal or to pass the ball. B1 leaps or reaches and is able to put his/her hands on the ball and keep A1 from releasing it. A1: (a) returns to the floor with the ball; or (b) is unable to control the ball and it drops to the floor. RULING: A held ball results immediately in (a) and (b) when airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball to pass or try for goal.

Of course, you can cling to your mistaken belief as well if you wish.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Except that the case book says to do exactly the opposite of what you write.



Of course, you can cling to your mistaken belief as well if you wish.

Of course, what you wrote as no bearing at all to the play I was describing, as neither a nor b happened in my scenario. But we already know how lazy you are when it comes to reading.

[just another ref]

The key to this is how we interpret the word "prevents."

An opponent.......... prevents an airborne player from releasing the ball.



Can it be considered that the opponent prevented the release, if the offensive player is able to pull the ball back from the contact, and subsequently release it before committing a violation?

I say yes.

[Back In The Saddle]

Are you suggesting that if the defender keeps the shooter from getting his shot off, but then the shooter tries a second time and succeeds that the defender actually prevented the first attempted shot? Do you mean to suggest that the successful try was really ... oh, I don't know, another play?

Can't be right. That makes too much sense.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The key to this is how we interpret the word "prevents."

An opponent.......... prevents an airborne player from releasing the ball.



Can it be considered that the opponent prevented the release, if the offensive player is able to pull the ball back from the contact, and subsequently release it before committing a violation?

I say yes.

I say no. If the airborne shooter is able to release the shot before returning to earth then I say he wasn't prevented from releasing his shot. It is still the same play.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the airborne shooter is able to release the shot before returning to earth then I say he wasn't prevented from releasing his shot. It is still the same play.

Sorry for not answering earlier, to this and your other post.

I still stand by what i said.

If i read you statement rightly "is able to release the ball" means that the opponent did not prevent the ball release at any point that they were airborne. thus no held ball.
hence my statement

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILMalti
But from your own MSG7 you were able to release it, thus you were not prevented thus no held ball.

Which from this post you concurr

On the other hand if the opponent had such a firm hand on the ball that you could not release the ball then a held ball.

I would not blow the whistle on "touching of the ball" that is not "preventing" a release, in this case you are right "wait to blow your whistle and NOT to immediately call a held ball." on the other hand once I see an offensive player and defensive player cup the ball tightly a Held ball shoudl be called.

From this an other previous postings we should ask How much effort was made to release the ball and was there any time in this struggle when the ball was held tightly between the offensive and defensive players? (Easier said then done)? If there was then a "held ball" is the right rulling and an immediate whistle is required or so I think.

From the OP, one can only assume that a release was not initiated (ie no air between offensive hand and ball before the "stuffed" situation occurs. If this is the case held ball (not jump ball as mentioned in OP, only mention for clarity sake) should be ruled, If there was air between the offensive hand and the defender before the stuffing then we have a new thread....

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I say no. If the airborne shooter is able to release the shot before returning to earth then I say he wasn't prevented from releasing his shot. It is still the same play.

Forget the airborne part for a minute, since it is not part of the definition of a held ball. The same play takes place with the offensive player standing on the floor. He raises the ball to shoot. The defender is there waiting for him. He effectively prevents the release.

Question: How long does contact have to be maintained before you whistle a held ball?

Answer: There is no specific amount of time.

Therefore, is it conceivable for the above to take place while the player is airborne? It may be the exception and not the rule, but no doubt in my mind it could happen.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

From this an other previous postings we should ask How much effort was made to release the ball and was there any time in this struggle when the ball was held tightly between the offensive and defensive players? (Easier said then done)? If there was then a "held ball" is the right rulling and an immediate whistle is required or so I think.

Other than adding that in these situations, the benefit of the doubt goes to a held ball (IOW, I wouldn't ask "how much" effort was made); I'd say you're showing good judgment. I think you're making it too difficult. It's a quick judgment call, and you won't have time to ask these questions before rendering a call.

One question, "Did the defender prevent the release?" If there is any doubt whatsoever in your mind, it's a held ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Can it be considered that the opponent prevented the release, if the offensive player is able to pull the ball back from the contact, and subsequently release it before committing a violation?

I say yes.

Agree.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Are you suggesting that if the defender keeps the shooter from getting his shot off, but then the shooter tries a second time and succeeds that the defender actually prevented the first attempted shot? Do you mean to suggest that the successful try was really ... oh, I don't know, another play?

Can't be right. That makes too much sense.

Agree.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I say no. If the airborne shooter is able to release the shot before returning to earth then I say he wasn't prevented from releasing his shot. It is still the same play.

Disagree.
PS This is exactly the play that I had in mind when writing earlier that you are mistaken. You are screwing the defensive player and giving the offensive player an opportunity which he doesn't deserve.

Do you also count the goal when an airborne player in the act of shooting is fouled causing him to lose control of the ball, but he is able to regain it while still in the air and shoot and score? In order to be consistent you would have to count that second attempt as "the same play."