What's The Correct Call ???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Would you call a timeout if one was asked?.

Pick a prize from the top shelf.

I've actually been waiting for someone to bring up that question. It's a great question, one that has been used before on the Forum, I believe, most recently, regarding an offensive player tapping a rebound to a teammate in the backcourt.

I find it odd that the NFHS would leave us with a revolving door type definition. If the official would grant a time out under such and such circumstance, then the player has player control. Also in order to grant a live ball timeout, a player on the team in control must have player control. Maybe a definition of "holding a ball" would be helpful?

cat_chasing_tail ÔÚÏß¹Û¿´ - ¿á6ÊÓƵ

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Is tapping a rebound in a controlled manner to a teammate or to yourself considered the same as having player control?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Throwing the ball in the air, moving your pivot foot beyond the limits, and then catching said ball is a travel.

That's the basis why I'm leaning toward travelling in Billy's sitch.

If you hold the ball, intentionally throw it, move to another spot on the floor, and hold it again, it's a travel.

If you hold the ball, fumble it, then intentionally move it on the floor to a new spot, then hold it again, shouldn't it still be a travel?

While you certainly cannot penalize the fumble, I see just cause in the intentional movement. What difference does it make whether you intentionally move the ball from one spot to the other -- resulting in control on both ends -- via the air or the floor?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Would you call a timeout if one was asked?

In a "had to be there scenario", yes, I would. So, I guess that means that he had player control. And, I guess that since he moved his pivot foot while having player control (I know that he wasn't dribbling, so he must have then "holding" the ball, no other choice), then he traveled.

Still doesn't feel right. So that means that in the situations where a player taps a rebound in the air like a volleyball for eighty-four feet, or bobbles a ball after catching a pass for eighty-four feet, or plays pinball with a ball on the floor for eighty-four feet, the only way we can rule this illegal is if we would have granted a timeout in those situations?

There has to be a better way. Something is rotten in the state of the NFHS (Apologizes to Billy Shakespeare)

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

Ah, no, you don't. Because once he's neither holding nor dribbling it, there is no player control.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We've debated whether, or not, an offensive player who "taps" a rebound to a teammate in his backcourt has player control.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Ah, no, as player control is defined in the rule book. Controlled manner is something you've just made up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If you hold the ball, fumble it, then intentionally move it on the floor to a new spot, then hold it again, shouldn't it still be a travel?

No. As per the definition of traveling in rule 4-44 you can only travel while holding the ball. See case book play 4.15.4SitD(d) also.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So that means that in the situations where a player taps a rebound in the air like a volleyball for eighty-four feet, or bobbles a ball after catching a pass for eighty-four feet, or plays pinball with a ball on the floor for eighty-four feet, the only way we can rule this illegal is if we would have granted a timeout in those situations?

You can't apply rules based on player control like traveling to situations in which there is NO player control. That's what you are still trying to do.

If you legitimately feel that the ball came to rest during an 84-foot tap/bobble/fumble/muff/etc., then apply the applicable rules at that point of the play. But don't rule that the ball came to rest just because the play happens to offend your idea of how the game should be played.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's the basis why I'm leaning toward travelling in Billy's sitch.

If you hold the ball, intentionally throw it, move to another spot on the floor, and hold it again, it's a travel.

If you hold the ball, fumble it, then intentionally move it on the floor to a new spot, then hold it again, shouldn't it still be a travel?

While you certainly cannot penalize the fumble, I see just cause in the intentional movement. What difference does it make whether you intentionally move the ball from one spot to the other -- resulting in control on both ends -- via the air or the floor?

Now bainsey thinks it's traveling to retrieve a fumble.

Nice job Billy Mac.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

But don't rule that the ball came to rest just because the play happens to offend your idea of how the game should be played.

Your 100% correct. I did exactly that yesterday in the heat of of the game. I remember thinking to myself before I sounded my whistle, "That can't be legal", instead of the much more correct, "That's illegal". That's why I discussed it with my partner, and brought it to the attention of the esteemed members of the Forum. It was probably a lousy call, and now I want to see if it really was illegal, not to defend my call, but to learn something regarding such plays (rebound tap, muff pass, roll ball) that may occur in the future.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If you legitimately feel that the ball came to rest during an 84-foot tap/bobble/fumble/muff/etc., then apply the applicable rules at that point of the play.

I can't imagine any Forum member allowing these plays to go on longer than several feet without sounding their whistle. Can you?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can't imagine any Forum member allowing these plays to go on longer than several feet without sounding their whistle. Can you?

Why not? If the defense allows an offensive player to go the length of the court and do that, then that's on them. Nothing illegal.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can't imagine any Forum member allowing these plays to go on longer than several feet without sounding their whistle. Can you?

Billy, I would hope that every forum member would let these plays go on until a violation, foul or the end of a period occurred. There's no reason under the rules to stop play before that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Billy, I would hope that every forum member would let these plays go on until a violation, foul or the end of a period occurred. There's no reason under the rules to stop play before that.

Unless you would have granted a timeout in such situations?

Granting timeout = player control = violation = dumb way to define player control. But has the NFHS left us any other options in situations like these (offensive rebound get batted to teammate in backcourt)?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Unless you would have granted a timeout in such situations?

Granting timeout = player control = violation = dumb way to define player control. But has the NFHS left us any other options in situations like these (offensive rebound get batted to teammate in backcourt)?

I think you're thinking about this way way too hard. I've never heard of anyone having any real issue with defining player control...holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Your issuing is with defining what holding is and I feel using the timeout analogy makes this quite easy to determine.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think you're thinking about this way way too hard. I've never heard of anyone having any real issue with defining player control...holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. You're issuing is with defining what holding is and I feel using the timeout analogy makes this quite easy to determine.

And, as I said earlier, I would have granted a time out. That doesn't mean that I would have been right to grant a timeout, but I would have, and thus, I guess that I was correct to call a travel. But something still feels wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Unless you would have granted a timeout in such situations?

Granting timeout = player control = violation = dumb way to define player control. But has the NFHS left us any other options in situations like these (offensive rebound get batted to teammate in backcourt)?

There's part of the problem with your understanding of plays like this imo. Player control does not equal a violation. All player control means is that the traveling and dribbling rules now apply. What the player does after gaining player control dictates what we have to call. If the player travels or commits an illegal second dribble after gaining player control, we call the violation. And if the player makes a legal timout request, well we grant that timeout request. But if after gaining player control, the player legally dribbles, passes, shoots or holds the ball, we do nothing.

That's all I'm trying to tell you.

The accepted definition of when a player is "holding" the ball is when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand(s). That's one of the criteria that we use to judge when a dribble ends also. And holding the ball IS player control.