What's The Correct Call ???

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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?

[just another ref]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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