Jump ball v. travel
 

A1 drives to the basket and jumps as B1 blocks A1's shot with his (B1's) forearm (not capping it with his hand) A1 never has the ball knocked out of his grasp and returns to the floor. What do you have?

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.

+1

As it is (none too clearly) written, I think B1 just got a steal and may dribble, shoot or pass but I sense something amiss...
did you mean to type A1 instead of the final B1 in your sitch?
If that is the case, Held ball!

This Looks Like Another Job For The Mythbusters ...
 

When an airborne player keeps control of an attempted shot that is blocked and is unable to release the ball and returns to the floor with it, that player has not traveled; it is a held ball. If, in this situation, the shooter loses control of the ball because of the block, then this is simply a blocked shot and play continues. If, in this situation, the defender simply touches the ball, and the airborne shooter returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation. When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and picks up the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I Love Quoting This Guy, He's So Intelligent, And Handsome Too ...
 

4.44.3 SITUATION A: A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and: (a) slaps the
ball out of A1’s hands; (b) touches the ball but does not prevent A1 from releasing
the ball; (c) touches the ball and A1 returns to the floor holding the ball; or
(d) touches the ball and A1 drops it to the floor and touches it first after it
bounces. RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball remains live. In (c), a traveling violation.
In (d), a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. Since
the touching did not prevent the pass or try in (b), (c) and (d), the ball remains
live and subsequent action is covered by rules which apply to the situation.

With the exception of (a), not many references to hands here.

It is important to remember that the rules are written for typical situations and some not so typical situations but are not necessarily intended to exhaustively cover all possible situations. The principles and philosophies behind the existing rules sometimes need to be used to cover some less common situations such as this despite the fact that the rule explicitly covers only one scenario (hands).

If B1 is caps the ball, even with a forearm, that fits the spirit and intent of this rule even if the rule only mentions hands.

I'm likely to call that a travel.

When A1 gets the ball stuck between a couple of bodies while driving through the lane, we don't usually consider that a held ball...it usually ends in a travel or a fumble. I'm inclined to call similarly when A1 is attempting a shot and the same thing occurs.

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.

But the rule is different on a shot than otherwise.

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.

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

Yes....now its fixed