Jump ball v. travel

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by grunewar

I'll go with a held ball. While Case Book Play 4.25.2 does say "with hands," I believe the important part is that airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball for a try or pass.

Ok, how about this: A1 fakes a shot. B1, thinking the shot is on it's way, turns around to block out A1. In the meantime, A1 now attempts a shot with B1 directly in front, and while the ball is still in A1's hand, hits the back of B1's head, and comes back down with the ball.

Since "the important part is that airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball for a try or pass", would this be a held ball too?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, how about this: A1 fakes a shot. B1, thinking the shot is on it's way, turns around to block out A1. In the meantime, A1 now attempts a shot with B1 directly in front, and while the ball is still in A1's hand, hits the back of B1's head, and comes back down with the ball.

Since "the important part is that airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball for a try or pass", would this be a held ball too?

Wow. There are scenarios and what ifs that are good to discuss and then there are these. I dont see how discussing this helps anyone.

My vote would be to charge the kid who took the shot with a flagrant technical foul for being quite possibly the complete polar opposite of Diebler as far as skill is involved and just get him out of the game so other ludicrous scenarios wont happen in your contest.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by deecee

Wow. There are scenarios and what ifs that are good to discuss and then there are these. I dont see how discussing this helps anyone.

My vote would be to charge the kid who took the shot with a flagrant technical foul for being quite possibly the complete polar opposite of Diebler as far as skill is involved and just get him out of the game so other ludicrous scenarios wont happen in your contest.

Ok, after sending the kid home crying and perhaps forever ruining any chance of him participating in organized sports for the rest of his life, consider the point of the question: if the case play specifically mentions "hands" while determining a held ball, how could the OP be considered a held ball instead of a travel?

My point was, how do we determine a held ball if it does not occur with the hands?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, after sending the kid home crying and perhaps forever ruining any chance of him participating in organized sports for the rest of his life, consider the point of the question: if the case play specifically mentions "hands" while determining a held ball, how could the OP be considered a held ball instead of a travel?

My point was, how do we determine a held ball if it does not occur with the hands?

We use our basketball sense. Did an effort to block the shot with the hand prevent the opponent from releasing the ball? Held ball. As long as the hand is in the vicinity of the ball, why pick nits?

My guess is the only reason it says hands and not hands/arm is the committee didn't consider it possible for the ball not to come loose in that situation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

We use our basketball sense. Did an effort to block the shot with the hand prevent the opponent from releasing the ball? Held ball. As long as the hand is in the vicinity of the ball, why pick nits?

My guess is the only reason it says hands and not hands/arm is the committee didn't consider it possible for the ball not to come loose in that situation.

Agreed, with a slight deviation; they simply didn't consider the possibility. It just didn't cross their minds. Why punish the offense (with a travel call) because the defense isn't quite as coordinated as he should be?

[Judtech]

I am not sure if this is nit picking or not since the NCAA went to GREAT lengths to let their officials know what anatomically constitutes an elbow and what does not. I can see in the future this rule being 'modified'.
In this scenario, I'm going with a JUMP. It is a "letter v intent' of the law play IMO.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

We use our basketball sense. Did an effort to block the shot with the hand prevent the opponent from releasing the ball? Held ball. As long as the hand is in the vicinity of the ball, why pick nits?

My guess is the only reason it says hands and not hands/arm is the committee didn't consider it possible for the ball not to come loose in that situation.

While "basketball sense" can be useful at times, there are also times where what would be the apparent "right" thing to do goes directly against the rules. (Umm, "blarge", anyone?) That's why I posed the initial (albeit far-fetched) question - how far do you go in determining a held ball that does not include the defender's hand(s)? Especially since 4.25.2 does use the word hands.

Maybe this example is a little more believeable: A1 goes up for a shot, while B1 also jumps up to defend/block the shot. A1 does a double-clutch and tries to go under B1's arms, but ends up pinning the ball against B1's side, and comes down with the ball. Somehow B1's hands or arms never touch the ball. (B1 was trying to stay "straight up" and not foul.) Would you still consider this a blocked shot, and thus a held ball?

For the record, I do not have an answer, just looking for opinions. In the OP, I too would rule a held ball, as a player can hold the ball without using their hands. But the wording of the case play has me thinking...yea, I know, sometimes a dangerous thing...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While "basketball sense" can be useful at times, there are also times where what would be the apparent "right" thing to do goes directly against the rules. (Umm, "blarge", anyone?) That's why I posed the initial (albeit far-fetched) question - how far do you go in determining a held ball that does not include the defender's hand(s)? Especially since 4.25.2 does use the word hands.

Maybe this example is a little more believeable: A1 goes up for a shot, while B1 also jumps up to defend/block the shot. A1 does a double-clutch and tries to go under B1's arms, but ends up pinning the ball against B1's side, and comes down with the ball. Somehow B1's hands or arms never touch the ball. (B1 was trying to stay "straight up" and not foul.) Would you still consider this a blocked shot, and thus a held ball?

For the record, I do not have an answer, just looking for opinions. In the OP, I too would rule a held ball, as a player can hold the ball without using their hands. But the wording of the case play has me thinking...yea, I know, sometimes a dangerous thing...

I'd likely rule a held ball here, too, as it seems to fit the intent of the rule.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While "basketball sense" can be useful at times, there are also times where what would be the apparent "right" thing to do goes directly against the rules. (Umm, "blarge", anyone?) That's why I posed the initial (albeit far-fetched) question - how far do you go in determining a held ball that does not include the defender's hand(s)? Especially since 4.25.2 does use the word hands.

Maybe this example is a little more believeable: A1 goes up for a shot, while B1 also jumps up to defend/block the shot. A1 does a double-clutch and tries to go under B1's arms, but ends up pinning the ball against B1's side, and comes down with the ball. Somehow B1's hands or arms never touch the ball. (B1 was trying to stay "straight up" and not foul.) Would you still consider this a blocked shot, and thus a held ball?

For the record, I do not have an answer, just looking for opinions. In the OP, I too would rule a held ball, as a player can hold the ball without using their hands. But the wording of the case play has me thinking...yea, I know, sometimes a dangerous thing...

Go with intent. in your scenario here I would NOT have a held ball as it is clearly the offensive players action that caused him to not release the ball. in Fact i would go so far to say that in the case of verticality the contact better happen in the upper areas (like the arms region) im not going to punish good defense by NOT calling a travel when it is the right call to make.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

in Fact i would go so far to say that in the case of verticality the contact better happen in the upper areas (like the arms region) im not going to punish good defense by NOT calling a travel when it is the right call to make.

1. I'm not sure what verticality has to do with this.
2. Do you really think my goal is to punish the defense by making the wrong call? That's what you're insinuating by that last portion. Either that or it's a meaningless statement.

I'm not conceding that travel is the right call. A1 is trying to shoot, and B1 is purposefully disturbing that shot and forcing A1 to adjust. That's completely different than B1 with his back to A1, and it seems to me it fits the intent. I'm still not certain.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While "basketball sense" can be useful at times, there are also times where what would be the apparent "right" thing to do goes directly against the rules. (Umm, "blarge", anyone?) That's why I posed the initial (albeit far-fetched) question - how far do you go in determining a held ball that does not include the defender's hand(s)? Especially since 4.25.2 does use the word hands.

Maybe this example is a little more believeable: A1 goes up for a shot, while B1 also jumps up to defend/block the shot. A1 does a double-clutch and tries to go under B1's arms, but ends up pinning the ball against B1's side, and comes down with the ball. Somehow B1's hands or arms never touch the ball. (B1 was trying to stay "straight up" and not foul.) Would you still consider this a blocked shot, and thus a held ball?

For the record, I do not have an answer, just looking for opinions. In the OP, I too would rule a held ball, as a player can hold the ball without using their hands. But the wording of the case play has me thinking...yea, I know, sometimes a dangerous thing...

In this particular play, I'd call a travel. A doesn't get to pin the ball against B to buy a held ball.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, how about this: A1 fakes a shot. B1, thinking the shot is on it's way, turns around to block out A1. In the meantime, A1 now attempts a shot with B1 directly in front, and while the ball is still in A1's hand, hits the back of B1's head, and comes back down with the ball.

Since "the important part is that airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball for a try or pass", would this be a held ball too?

So while attempting a jump shot, A1 somehow still puts the ball directly into the back of standing B1's head and returns to the floor all without the ball being dislodged from A1's hand?

I'd pay money to see that.

I've got traveling here. I'm comfortable calling a held ball if B1 blocks the ball with a forearm even if there is no actual hand contact, but A1 putting the ball into the back of B1's head is too far from "An opponent plac[ing] his/her hand(s) on the ball" for me to call a held ball here.