gps-10

[LarryS]

Originally posted by crew
ok folks here i go again.

a1 drives the lane picks up dribble takes 2 steps, jumps and has the ball at his midsection. b1 steps toward a1 with his hands high to defend, jumps and causes the ball to become "sandwitched"(for lack of better word) between the 2 players making a1 unable to finish. they then both come to the ground.

what would you call on this play?

OK, since maybe we are reading things into this I'll offer another option. Webster defines a step as "the single complete movement of raising one foot and putting it down in another spot, as in walking". If, after A1 picked up his dribble, he lifts one foot off the floor (say left foot)and puts it in another spot, then his right foot becomes the pivot foot. If he thin lifts his right foot and returns it to the floor before he releases the ball isn't that traveling? Just a thought.

[BktBallRef]

Nope. The play doesn't say where either foot was when the dribble ended. If neither foot is touching, then the frist step establishes the pivot and the second step is legal. We see this play all the time.

The intent of the play is to ask about the contact/block/noncontact scenario. The first part of the play seems legal enough.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
While the case was presented with some ambiguity, I believe the intent was that there was no contact. He said that he ball was "sandwiched" between the players. I interpreted that to mean the bodies didn't contact each other...the presence of the ball prevented any contact.

I have traveling.

I don't see how a 29.5" diameter elastic sphere can prevent
two 150+ lb (more likely 200+ lbs) humans from contacting
each other when they are moving towards each other, one of
them presumably at a reasonably rapid rate. If B1 is legal I
have a travel. Otherwise it's a block.

[crew]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
SOunds like one you have to see.

Did A1 release the ball or was he holding it the entire time?

Was there contact created by B1 on the play?

a1 does not release the ball he remained in possession.

contact is very minimal and does not illegally impede the progress of the offense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

I don't see how a 29.5" diameter elastic sphere can prevent
two 150+ lb (more likely 200+ lbs) humans from contacting
each other when they are moving towards each other, one of
them presumably at a reasonably rapid rate. If B1 is legal I
have a travel. Otherwise it's a block. [/B][/QUOTE]Elastic? Your balls must be different than mine.Mine won't stretch!

Presuming "all ball",I can't see a foul on B1.If B1 stops A1 from getting the shot off and A1 comes back down with the ball,I'd call it a jump ball.Why?This specific circumstance is not spelled out in the rules,and the situation is fairly similar to a player blocking a shot with his hand(s).If you got something close in the rulebook to CYA,then use it to CYA!

Crew just added his explanation after I posted,so I'll offer an amendment.If the contact is "all ball" and very minimal,I'd go with a travel.Same reasoning-close to language already in the book.



[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 19th, 2002 at 12:44 PM]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Elastic? Your balls must be different than mine.Mine won't stretch!

Yeah, my balls are special.

Anyway, what Crew added was B1 does not illegally impede A1, which is different from the way I read the play. If B1 steps into A1 driving the lane he has illegally impeded him. As I already said if B1 is legal I have a travel on A1, which I guess answers Crew's question since I think he's saying you have already judged B1 legal and have to decide between jump ball & travel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Yeah, my balls are special.

Anyway, what Crew added was B1 does not illegally impede A1, which is different from the way I read the play. If B1 steps into A1 driving the lane he has illegally impeded him. As I already said if B1 is legal I have a travel on A1, which I guess answers Crew's question since I think he's saying you have already judged B1 legal and have to decide between jump ball & travel.

With minimal contact,I can agree with that.I think that it's the same concept as a legal block with the hands i.e. minimal contact vs. sufficient contact that the shooter can't do anything with the ball.

Btw,I won't get into the concept of balls,Woody,and spoiling your dog.I think that one's already been covered.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

With minimal contact,I can agree with that.I think that it's the same concept as a legal block with the hands i.e. minimal contact vs. sufficient contact that the shooter can't do anything with the ball.

Btw,I won't get into the concept of balls,Woody,and spoiling your dog.I think that one's already been covered.

LOL. BTW, a Woody & his balls are soon to be parted.
(They were almost parted yesterday, he had an accident on the rug & it took me 10 minutes to get the scissors out of my wife's hands. )

[AK ref SE]

Cameron Rust-
Your right Cameron, I also call the reach, and I make the travelling signal on an out of bounds throw-in situation!!

My point earlier was ( I do not make a call based on what the coach wants) That.....it is going to very difficult to see that there was only contact on the ball between the two players.

I am going to stay with a block

AK ref SE

[Self]

Originally posted by AK ref SE
Cameron Rust-
My point earlier was ( I do not make a call based on what the coach wants) That.....it is going to very difficult to see that there was only contact on the ball between the two players.I am going to stay with a blockAK ref SE

The question as written or as the clarifiaction says the only contact you see is the ball against the players. Are you still calling a block, even if you see no contact clearly?

[Self]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

[i]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee If B1 steps into A1 driving the lane he has illegally impeded him.

What rule book is this in, I haven't seen it. If B1 steps infront of A1 and illegally impedes him by saying boo and their is no contact, you have a block?

You can impede someone all night long as long as their is no contact. Ball to body is not contact.....

[Edited by Self on Aug 19th, 2002 at 02:05 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Self

Originally posted by Dan_ref

What rule book is this in, I haven't seen it. If B1 steps infront of A1 and illegally impedes him by saying boo and their is no contact, you have a block?

You can impede someone all night long as long as their is no contact. Ball to body is not contact.....

[Edited by Self on Aug 19th, 2002 at 02:05 PM]

Self,you're misreading Dan's post.He said that the illegal contact is physical contact by B1 on A1 while B1 is trying to block the shot.That is a foul.Dan said that if B1 got "ball only" with minimal contact on the ball,he had travelling.I agree with that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

LOL. BTW, a Woody & his balls are soon to be parted.
(They were almost parted yesterday, he had an accident on the rug & it took me 10 minutes to get the scissors out of my wife's hands. )
[/B][/QUOTE]I just sent Woody an e-mail.Just basically told him "fairs fair"!Best sleep on your stomach to-night.

[crew]

basically, i was looking for some philosophy on this play. the rule book clearly states that "hands firmly on the ball..."(nc2a and nba) constitutes a held ball. that is why i made sure to say the body created the situation. getting into the defense a litle deeper no foul(my judgment) was committed on the play i saw.

my gut feeling on this play is a held ball and that is what i called without grief from anyone(thank goodness). but when i read the held ball definition i began to 2nd guess myself. then i thought, what if he were to stop the shot with his forarm or elbow and they both came to the floor. i would rule that a held ball as well without doubt.

if anyone were to call a travel in this sitch it is also an appropriate decision-i just wanted to hear from the board.

any additional thoughts/philosophy?

[braboa]

Hi guys. I'm a rookie here, so take it easy on me.

When I first read this I thought if I saw this play full speed I'm thinking I would have let it go as if the offensive player were stripped of the ball. There's virtually no contact, so there is no foul. You can't rule it a block and there is no tie up situation. I have a hard time calling traveling when both players were in contact with the ball (it was sandwiched between them). You could argue it was dislodged. I think a "let the kids play" would be in order based on the premise that two guys were hustling for the ball.