travel or not

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There is possession, but I'd go with a held ball. Alternatively, if A1 and A2 are fighting over the ball and even one of them travels, it's a violation.

And further, if Packer said it, I'd go with the opposite position. If I wanted to be correct, that is.

[KenL.nation]

Now if A1 and B1 are holding the ball and it's too soon to call jump ball,where is the possession and who has it.
In the effort to secure possession, either A1 or B1 shuffle their respective feet. I don't consider this a travel, I have been allowing it on the premise that it's like a lose ball, and can't find anything in the rule book addressing this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KenL.nation

Now if A1 and B1 are holding the ball and it's too soon to call jump ball,where is the possession and who has it.
In the effort to secure possession, either A1 or B1 shuffle their respective feet. I don't consider this a travel, I have been allowing it on the premise that it's like a lose ball, and can't find anything in the rule book addressing this.

How is it "too soon?" There's no time requirement; I would consider it a held ball if they can't get it loose without traveling or forcing the other player to travel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by KenL.nation

In the effort to secure possession, either A1 or B1 shuffle their respective feet. I don't consider this a travel, I have been allowing it on the premise that it's like a lose ball, and can't find anything in the rule book addressing this.

NFHS rule 4-43-"Traveling(running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction while holding the ball.". That rule then goes on to define the allowable foot limits.

If you aren't holding the ball, by definition you can't travel.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS rule 4-43-"Traveling(running with the ball) is moving a foot or feet in any direction while holding the ball.". That rule then goes on to define the allowable foot limits.

If you aren't holding the ball, by definition you can't travel.

His scenario has them holding the ball, so he has to make a choice between a travel and a held ball.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

His scenario has them holding the ball, so he has to make a choice between a travel and a held ball.

His scenario was ..quote-"in an effort to secure POSSESSION....-unquote.

If two opposing [players are both holding the ball, you can't have a travel by rule. That option is out.

You also can't have two players trying to secure possession if they both already have possession. And you can't have a held ball until/unless both players have dual possession of the ball.

And you know all that.

I'm just going by what the original poster writ, and I'm not sure that he understands what he's trying to ask. That's what I'm trying to ascertain.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

His scenario was ..quote-"in an effort to secure POSSESSION....-unquote.

If two opposing [players are both holding the ball, you can't have a travel by rule. That option is out.

You also can't have two players trying to secure possession if they both already have possession. And you can't have a held ball until/unless both players have dual possession of the ball.

And you know all that.

I'm just going by what the original poster writ, and I'm not sure that he understands what he's trying to ask. That's what I'm trying to ascertain.

I'm not sure he understands either, but in his first sentence (the one you initially cut out), he says A1 and B1 are both holding the ball. Sure seems like dual possession to me.

By "trying to secure possession" I thought he meant "trying to rip it away from the opponent." I could be wrong, though.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not sure he understands either, but in his first sentence (the one you initially cut out), he says A1 and B1 are both holding the ball.

Ah....that's a held ball...whether he likes it or not.