Jump ball or out of bounds?

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What if the ball is released before the shooter returns to the floor?

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

On the other hand if the shooter jumped in the air and as the defender was approaching dropped the ball on the floor, very different situation.

Perhaps a bit more details is required please.

[Raymond]

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

...

Perhaps a bit more details is required please.

MSG #7 from me gives an example:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm waiting. I've had my shot capped a few times but was still strong enough to release it before I landed. In fact it happened to me today in lunch-time ball. Unfortunately a 2nd defender swatted my sh!t.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

MSG #7 from me gives an example:

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

[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 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.