What's The Correct Call ???

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't see what makes this play illegal. There was no second dribble (rolling the ball is not a dribble, and you can't push or a bat a ball to the floor if it's already on the floor); and he's not holding the ball, so it's not a travel. I vote play on.

+1

Once you rule it a fumble, there's no rules governing subsequent actions afaik except the kick/punch/backcourt/OOB ones until player control is established again. You can't call something just because you personally feel it isn't fair.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You can't call something just because you personally feel it isn't fair.

Agree. There are a few rules that I personally don't think are fair and yet I have to enforce them.

This play just seemed illegal. I'm not talking about a play (traveling) that an official sees as being "odd" and calls it illegal just because it looks "oddly" illegal.

I really thought (probably incorrectly) that this kid was gaining an advantage not intended by rule. He was intentionally, and deliberately, controlling his tapping motion to roll the ball away from the two defenders. I knew right away that my traveling call was incorrect. I still thought (past tense) that it the play must have been, or should have been, illegal. Now, I'm not so sure.

I would allow a player, while catching a pass, to bobble the ball with both hands while moving his pivot feet. I'm just not sure that I would allow said player to do that for eighty feet if I thought that he was "controlling' the bobble. Same thing for a rolled ball. The first roll was definitely unintentional and legal. The second roll, with defenders nearby, was questionable in my mind. It was the third roll that made me decide it was illegal, and sound my whistle.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I really thought (probably incorrectly) that this kid was gaining an advantage not intended by rule. He was intentionally, and deliberately, controlling his tapping motion to roll the ball away from the two defenders. I knew right away that my traveling call was incorrect. I still thought (past tense) that it the play must have been, or should have been, illegal. Now, I'm not so sure.

If a player on a rebound tapped the ball away from opposing rebounders once or several times without establishing player control, do you think that should be illegal also as per the same logic of intentionally and deliberately keeping the ball away from his opponents? Is that unfair also?

That's a fairly common play btw.

[jearef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If a player on a rebound tapped the ball away from opposing rebounders once or several times without establishing player control, do you think that should be illegal also as per the same logic of intentionally and deliberately keeping the ball away from his opponents? Is that unfair also?

That's a fairly common play btw.

Great point. Now I'm not so sure.

[BktBallRef]

If the play isn't illegal by rule, it's legal. The official's feelings on the subject mean nothing.

Personally, the next time I use rule 2-3 or suggest on a discussion board that 2-3 should be used will be the very first time.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

If the play isn't illegal by rule, it's legal. The official's feelings on the subject mean nothing.

How about the results of a poll?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If a player on a rebound tapped the ball away from opposing rebounders once or several times without establishing player control, do you think that should be illegal also as per the same logic of intentionally and deliberately keeping the ball away from his opponents? Is that unfair also? That's a fairly common play.

It certainly is. Would you let this player do that for eighty-four feet?

You did bring up a key word that I believe that I didn't use in my original post. Player control. A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Even though the player was only controlling the ball with one hand as it rolled across the floor, could I have ruled that player control exsited here, and that the player moved illegally while controlling the ball, and thus, had traveled?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It certainly is. Would you let this player do that for eighty-four feet?

You did bring up a key word that I believe that I didn't use in my original post. Player control. A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Even though the player was only controlling the ball with one hand as it rolled across the floor, could I have ruled that player control exsited here, and that the player moved illegally while controlling the ball, and thus, had traveled?

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Your ruling would not be supported by rule.

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?

[just another ref]

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?

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

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?

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It certainly is. Would you let this player do that for eighty-four feet?

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

You did bring up a key word that I believe that I didn't use in my original post. Player control. A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Even though the player was only controlling the ball with one hand as it rolled across the floor, could I have ruled that player control exsited here, and that the player moved illegally while controlling the ball, and thus, had traveled?

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."