You could have ruled it, but your ruling would not be supported by rule. JMO

Can you cite a rule that says he can't? No.

Can you cite a rule that says you can? No.

You can turn this into a 10 page thread but the answer is still, "It's not a violation by rule."

The Number One Answer ...
 

How about the results of a poll?

Pardon My French ...
 

A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

Traveling is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits
while holding the ball.

Once I make a judgment that the player is in control of the ball, then I've got rule support. N'est-ce pas?

Hey guys. I'm not saying that I made the right call (traveling), or that I made the right decision that this was somehow illegal. I'm not trying to get out of this by pushing the envelope. I knew coming into this that I was on shaky ground.

It's just that I can't see allowing a player to tap a rebound in the air like a volleyball for eighty-four feet, or bobble a ball after catching a pass for eighty-four feet, or play roller hockey with a ball for eighty-four feet, and have it be legal? It just doesn't make any sense to me? Does it make sense to the NFHS? That's my question. Do you think that they consider any of these three actions legal?

In control is defined by rule. The player in question was neither holding nor dribbling, thus not in control.

I don't think they have given great consideration to these actions one way or another, because they never happen.

Absolutely 100% not true. Rule 2-3 may be used for other situations that arise during a game. But it should NOT be used to penalize actions which are not listed as illegal. (I'm including actions that fall under the catch-all "including, but not limited to. . .", even if they aren't specifically listed.) In fact, I was looking through old threads a while ago and found a discussion where I think 2-3 might legitimately apply. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the thread was now. But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.

Player Control, Team Control, Backcourt ???
 

We've debated whether, or not, an offensive player who "taps" a rebound to a teammate in his backcourt has player control. Why not my situation? Can a player who is intentionally, and deliberately, rolling the ball on the court, to gain an advantage, be considered to be "holding" the ball, and thus have player control?

In a word,


NO.

Realistically, I think this might be a good question if it was something that happened more than once in a career. The fact is, if a player rolls the ball on the floor, it's not gonna gain him an advantage, because somebody else is gonna pick it up.

Advantage Not Intended By A Rule ...
 

I want you to get the facts straight. The first time he rolled, after the fumble, it he didn't gain an advantage, and actually put himself at a disadvantage (as you state). The second, and third, time he rolled the ball he intentionally, and deliberately, tapped the ball so that it rolled away from the two defenders. That, in my opinion, is certainly an advantage, however, the question is, is this an advantage that is not intended by a rule?

+1

To put the point differently: rule 2-3 concerns situations not covered by the rules. All violations are defined by the rules, so one would never have occasion to call a violation using 2-3.

Okay, reviewing the situation, here's my opinion. In your play, A1 fumbled the ball. It is now a loose ball on the floor. If B1 reaches the ball first and pushes it away from A1, this is not in any way illegal, nor is it a dribble. If B1 subsequently picks up the ball, he would be free to dribble. A1 should have an equal opportunity to recover the ball by pushing it away from the defense. He just would not have a dribble after he recovered the ball.

Player control is defined as holding or dribbling the ball. The usual criteria for judging player control is whether the ball came to rest in/on a player's hands(s). And that's always a judgment call.

By rule, there is no player control during a fumble/muff. Soooooo....during a fumble/muff we should be looking for 4 things:
1) a foul because of contact giving one player an illegal advantage
2) player control being established
3) somebody with OOB status touching the ball
4) the offensive team touching the ball first in the backcourt if the fumble/muff went frontcourt to backcourt after having beein in team control in the frontcourt and an offensive player touched it last in the frontcourt.

If a foul occurs, call it. If player control is established, go to the appropriate rule for that situation i.e. traveling, illegal second dribble, etc. If the ball goes OOB or a backcourt violation occurs, call those also.

Other than that, quit thinking so damn much! :D

KISS!

Too Bad, They Were Happy Thoughts ...
 

Maybe I should tell you what I really think of you? Wait a minute? You suggested that I quite thinking so damn much. So I can't tell you. Nevermind.

(Reminds me of the old joke about the coach who asks the official if he can be charged with a technical foul for just thinking something.)

The Crux Of The Matter ...
 

Is tapping the ball along the floor in a controlled manner the same as having player control?

Would you call a timeout if one was asked? I'm not and therefore no player control.