Jump ball or out of bounds?
 

I was working a game at a camp using 3 person crews. Player a1 in transition just over mid court near sideline jumps in the air to throw over head pass. b1 jumps as well and the pass is stuffed. b1 lands out of bounds with both players still touching the ball. We have a double whistle as trail calls out of bounds and lead calls jump.

I have been thinking about this and still not sure of correct call. What would be correct, with rules reference? This was NCAAW but would like NFHS as well.

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.

Based on what?

If the stuff prevents the pass from being thrown, then you have a held ball situation. Would you call him for traveling if he landed in bounds? The held ball happened in the air before any violation was committed, that's your call here.

Well, this may be the issue. 4-25-2 says, "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." If they have to land, they wouldn't be airborne anymore, right? ;)

They have to land before you can call the held ball, but the held ball occurred before they landed.

It's like lifting the pivot foot before the ball is released: you have to see whether it's released for a dribble or a pass. The travel happens when the pivot foot is lifted, but you can call a violation only after the player dribbles.

I do some metaphysics and other hair splitting for my day job. ;)

<font color=green>I agree here.</font color>

<font color=red>I don't agree here. Where does it say you <B>have to wait</B> to make the call?</font color> Now, I agree that many officials may wait to see if the ball truly was prevented from being released before the player landed, or, in other words, having a patient whistle to watch the whole play. But I don't know of any requirement that the player has to land before the call is "official", so to speak. In your traveling example, what happens after the player releases the ball is important in determing whether a violation occured - was it a dribble or pass? In the held ball example, the held ball occured in the air, so there's no requirement to wait.

See, I can hair-split with the best of them. :)

So A1 jumps to shoot the ball, B5 caps the ball so it cannot be released. Are you saying we shouldn't call the held ball until they land??

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. :o

This situation is clearly covered by 4.25.2
"An opponent places his/her hand on the ball and prevents an airborne player from throwing the ball or releasing it on a try.

The OP and this is covered under situation for 4.25.2

since a held ball came first; HELD ball is the correct call

The rule says a held ball if "... control cannot to obtained without undue roughness (4.25.1)
and as in your case
"... prevents an airborne player from...." (4.25.2)

neither seem to apply here


Hopefully a shooting foul was called

Yes, I'm aware of the rule. The question was about, waiting for them to land before ruling on the play as mbyron stated.

You called the foul, right ;)

The held ball came first Therefore held ball is called. When they left the floor I assume both playes were inbound

I did edit my post

Thank you I hope for a good call once in awhile :)

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

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.

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.

Not convinced
 

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.

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.

Are We Looking At The Same Casebook Play ???
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Remember, you posted this earlier:

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. ;)

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. :D

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. ;)

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.

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. ;)

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.

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....:)

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.

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.

Agree.

Agree.

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."

Disagree Airborne is very important since rule 4.25.2 states "prevents an airborne player..."

4.25.1 specifically says "opponents have their HANDS so firmly" (emphasis added), ie both hands ie 4 hands on the ball

And the 4-25-1 statement "firmly" does not apply to the airborne player noted in 4-25-2.

Agree the word "prevents" does

yep. two separate articles make for two separate scenarios.

I don't see what one play has to do with the other. In my scenario, which actually happened to me in a pick-up game, I elevated and attempted to shoot, the first defender got his hand on top of the ball as I was elevating. As I was coming back down I was able to pull the ball back and release it. The 2nd defender blocked my shot. There is no way in heck that if this play occurred in a regulation game that I would blow my whistle and rule a held ball.

I see a lot of athletic plays where I live and officiate. I have seen players get their shot "capped" and still get their shot away from all kinds of crazy angles AND make the basket. The case play you referenced earlier in the thread did not address plays in which an airborne shooter is actually able get his shot off after initially getting it "capped".

BTW, in your quoted play above my instincts would be to count the basket. Now, if there is a rule/case/interp from NCAA and/or NFHS that says my instinct is wrong then I will adjust accordingly.

Oh yeah, I forgot: :) In honor of our more kinder, gentler forum.

Regardless. The premesis of "just an other ref" is not correct since if an offensive player was standing on the ground about to shoot and a defender puts a hand on the ball, not held ball according to 4.25.

Perhaps I mis read the post of " just another ref". Will go revisit

Nope, you got it right.

I just added 2 + 2 and now fully understand your previous statement

"yep. two separate articles make for two separate scenarios."
Opps

:o

BNR,
Don't forget that I used to live and officiate in the DC area as well.

I still think that you are failing to properly reward the athleticism of the defender for getting his hand on the ball without fouling and preventing the offensive player from releasing the ball when he desired. He has met the requirement of the rule for a held ball at that point. Anything else that happens afterwards doesn't matter. The ball is dead at that moment and you should sound the whistle immediately as it says in the NFHS case book.

If you don't do this, then you are presenting the offensive player with an extra advantage to which he is not entitled by rule. You are tipping the carefully crafted balance between offense and defense that has been established by the rules writers. That negatively impacts the game.

What?? You think players must have both hands on the ball to have a held ball??

Hands = plural = more than one hand

Two opponents @ one hand each = two hands = possible held ball

The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball. The try ends when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful.

A mid-air pump fake does not habitually precede the release of the ball. Therefore the pull back and subsequent release is another try. When the first try was not released, it became certain that it was unsuccessful. The defender prevented the release.

Held Ball

Please read my full post.

If a player is on the GROUND and is about to try and the opponet places a hand on the ball preventing the try, this is NOT a held ball,

Oh really? Might want to rethink that one. Collectively, each having either one or two hands on the ball satisfies the clause "opponents have their hands so firmly". If two players have a hold of the ball such that it would take excessive force to free it...it is a jump ball. Forget about how many hands are on the ball....two hands (one from each) is adequate. It just happens that one hand on the ball is rarely enough for a player to retain their hold on the ball but it can be done.

Good point. I'll think about it will get back, the clause that is holding me back from answering totally is the "undue roughness" . In the situation I described, all the shooter needs to do is lower their arm ... hence no undue roughness,

I disagree. The defender must prevent the airborne player from releasing the ball on a try/pass...not just delay the release. Until the airborne player lands, the defender has not yet prevented that player form releasing the ball on a try/pass. If the defense had truly made a play that was deserving of reward, they would have knocked or grabbed the ball out of the shooter's hands. Short of that the defense deserves nothing if the offense can still complete the shot before landing.

They both involve a player making an extraordinary play. With a dead ball.
Nice defensive play.
Very nice, athletic play on your part. Too bad it doesn't count. ;)
Nice play on his part. Won't help his stats though.
Now that may be true. We could have a very ... enthusiastic discussion about whether this reaction falls into the "that way it's really done" category. Same with the play where the shooter gets capped, and then loses the ball. I've never seen either of these plays blown dead immediately.

But, by rule, it's a held ball, the ball is dead, and the extraordinary second effort is irrelevant.

May I Be Excused ???
 

I didn't know there was going to be math on the Forum today.

It could be. The shooter puts it up, meets resistance, but rather than pulling back tries to muscle it through the defender.

After (insert description of an indefinite amount of time here), held ball.

I am still debating internally how this and Camron post fall under the "undue roughness", I still do not see how it is possible, but I will get back with my definitive answer shortly

No held ball situation is a nice play...it is a compromise play where neither team is entirely deserving of the ball. That is the entire basis of resuming with either a jump or a possession arrow.

If it were really that nice of a defensive play, the defender would have taken the ball from the offensive player by either grabbing the ball or knocking it away from the shooter.

If the shooter is able to adjust and release the shot before landing, what was prevented? Of course, in a majority of a cases, it will prevent the shot, I'm not killing the play until it is clear the shot was prevented. If the defender can't prevent the shooter from releasing the shot, they haven't earned anything.

Once the shooter is in the air, all motions are part of the same shot attempt as long as the shooter maintains control of the ball. Who would cancel the shot of a shooter that goes up with the ball in the left hand and switches to the right hand to complete the shot just because they were fouled prior to shifting the ball to the right hand. It is really two halves of the same attempt, not two seperate attempts.

This is debatable.

A foul does not cause the ball to become dead. A held ball call does.

But is it really held at all? I find it pretty hard to explain that the release was prevented as the ball is dropping out of the net.

When is a held ball a held ball? There is no simple answer.

4-25-2 could have just as easily stated:

.......prevents an airborne player from throwing the ball........before he returns to the floor.


but it doesn't. We must see each play and decide when to make the call. Whatever happens after that, including a release, is irrelevant.

This is the short version since I lost my length disertation :

We are talking about

A) 4.25.1 ONLY; ie A1 has ball foot/feet on court not dribbling.
B) A1 and B1 only have one hand a piece on the ball
C) "control cannot be obtained without undue roughness"
D) rough is described as : "Characterized by violent motion"; "characterized by unnecessary violence or infractions of the rules"; "acting with or characterized by violence:" (ref; rough; - definition of rough; by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. rough definition | Dictionary.com)

Remembering the definition of "rough", I cannot see how a held ball can occur when A1 and B1 only have one hand on the ball. Even "muscling the ball does not fit under the description of rough. Perhaps it is due to lack of experience on court.

On the other hand if 3 or more players are involved then I would agree with you, but now we have 3 or more hands

Ever seen a player tuck the ball in their arm like a football, holding the ball between their hand/arm and their body?? Imagine two players doing it at the same time...wrestling for a rebound perhaps. And, yes, I've seen plays like this more than a few times.

Perhaps, but after a foul, the ball becomes dead when the "try" ends.

Then I stand corrected.