You make da call
 

NF rules. A1 passes to A2. A2 bats (not catches) the ball down to the floor and pins it there. While his hands are on top of the ball pressing down, he drops to his knees. Travel? Remember, he's wasn't "holding" the ball when his knees touched the floor, just pushing on it. Is there a difference?

You said it. He wasn't holding the ball. No travel.

4-44
Traveling (running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball.

Player is in control. There is no definition for "holding the ball" though the description meets the basic qualifications a held ball (4-25). I vote for traveling (though it is not a hill I am willing to die on).

I vote for no travel.

+1

Ah, you might want to read the definition in the post prior to yours, where it says traveling occurs while "holding the ball."

A1 gets control on the floor, sets it down next to him, then gets up. This is a travel.
Had the player held it first, prior to pinning it, you could justify a travel call based on the inverse of this play.

Good case Hugh, play on though.

I don't get it.

He pins the ball to the floor and runs a little circle around it. Travel or no? "Holding the ball" does not necessarily have to mean that he has it gripped tightly between 2 hands.

Let me ask you this, would you grant a TO if he was pinning the ball to the floor?

If you hadn't asked this question, I probably would have, but now I wouldn't.
The player with the ball pinned is neither holding nor dribbling it. There is no player control, so no timeout.

Actually was going to use that question instead, but the thought of the guy leaning on his arm running around in circles was more amusing.

Answer, if his hand was on top of the ball and he had it forcefully pinned (which is the way I have pretty much pictured this whole scenario) I would most likely grant the TO.

Which criterion of 'player control' has this player satisfied?

Ok...player has hands big enought to palm the basketball. Now, is the player holding it, even though it's on the floor?

Are his fingers closed around it? Have to judge whether or not he is controlling it, I am probably saying he is not unless he is obviously palming it and moving it around....a htbt for sure...

NOPE Does not meet the "basic qualifications a held ball." Held ball must be by OPPONENTS - Read 4-25 again.

If the defender did a belly slide and grabbed the ball on each side while the guy had his hand on top would it be a held ball?

Great point, Anchor.

If the player on the floor could contest the defender taking the ball, then yes...he was "holding " the ball.

Well, yes, but...

4-25
HELD BALL
A held ball occurs when:

4-25-1
Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.

It doesn't say they are "holding"...

I asked about player control. You're talking about a held ball. Different animals.

How can you have your hands firmly on the ball without holding it?

Let's get the NF to define what "holding ....a live ball inbounds" means. Until then my interpretation may be different from others.

Player goes up to shoot. Big guy there waiting for him. Puts one hand firmly on the ball and stuffs player, ball, and all back to the floor. Result: Held ball.
Did the defender actually hold the ball? NO

I know the rule sets are different, but the premise is the same, IMO. In football, a catch requires the ball not touch the ground; IOW the player does not catch it if he has trapped it with the ground. I would apply the same principal here, but only because the NFHS has not defined a player holding the ball.

If it's not clear, it's not a violation.

Agree, but a different criterion is used in this particular case. And that criterion is that the defender prevented the shooter from releasing the ball. There is nothing in the rule governing this situation that states the defender also has to be holding the ball to prevent the shot.

Case book play 4.25.2

Note the usage of the word "criterion". I learned that one from our resident cunning linguist, MByron. I are now wise beyond my years.

That was my whole point. I was answering a question.

Anchor gave a pretty good example.

And the least that you coulda done was thank me for providing rules backing for your point.

But that's OK.......:mad:

JAR, I understand your point. The point I was trying to make concerns the player on the floor with his hand on the ball....not a defender blocking a shot.

Still the question is open: Does a hand on the ball while the ball is on the floor constitute holding the ball?

Has anyone ever seen a player dive for a loose ball, put a hand on it, and request a time out? Do you grant it or not? If you believe he/she is "holding" the ball, you should grant the time out. If you believe they are not holding the ball you let play continue. I'm of the school I'd grant the time out.

As Anchor said, if a defender then comes and puts their hand(s) on the ball, do you call a held ball? If the defender can't get it loose from the player on the floor with one hand on it, by definition, the player on the floor is "holding" it. I'd probably call a held ball also.

To me, holding the ball implies control. A player with the ball pinned to the floor can't do anything else with it except keep it pinned. I'm not granting this TO, and I'm not calling traveling, and I'm not starting a 5 second count.

Criterion ??? Isn't That A Telescope Brand ???
 

He's better than using a "Word of the Day" Calendar.

Gramercy!

The ball needn't be held to have a held ball.