What's The Correct Call ???

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is the same concept as the rebound tipped into the BC by the offense. Even if you're 100% sure he did it on purpose and the ball went precisely where it was supposed to go, player control is not established.

That sitch is about TEAM control, not player control. Team control has to be established in the front court for a backcourt violation to exist.

A fumble does not wipe the slate clean. Consider fumble-dribble-fumble vs. dribble-fumble-dribble. The former is legal; the latter is not --assuming there's a ball hold before the second dribble -- because you still have two dribbles.

The fumble was fine, until the player started directing the ball to another spot. Once he gained control a second time, I have a travel.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That sitch is about TEAM control, not player control. Team control has to be established in the front court for a backcourt violation to exist.

A fumble does not wipe the slate clean. Consider fumble-dribble-fumble vs. dribble-fumble-dribble. The former is legal; the latter is not --assuming there's a ball hold before the second dribble -- because you still have two dribbles.

The fumble was fine, until the player started directing the ball to another spot. Once he gained control a second time, I have a travel.

The concept is the same, though, in that player control must be established in this situation in order to establish team control. It is about player control, whether or not you want to agree.

And again, directing the ball to a spot does not constitute player control, or the rebound play I just mentioned would be a violation. A controlled bat does not equal control, no matter how much you want it to.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

1) That sitch is about TEAM control, not player control. Team control has to be established in the front court for a backcourt violation to exist.

2)A fumble does not wipe the slate clean. Consider fumble-dribble-fumble vs. dribble-fumble-dribble. The former is legal; the latter is not --assuming there's a ball hold before the second dribble -- because you still have two dribbles.

3) The fumble was fine, until the player started directing the ball to another spot. Once he gained control a second time, I have a travel.

1) Team control has got dick-all to do with traveling. Never has, never will. The definition of traveling in rule 4-44 as already cited umpteen times says that you can't travel unless you're holding the ball. And holding the ball is player control as per rule 4-12-1. Team control is completely irrelevant when it comes to traveling. And we sureashell haven't been discussing backcourt violations.

2) How about dribble-fumble-grab ball? You do realize that's what you insist on saying has to be traveling, don't you? On second thought, no, you obviously don't realize that.

3) Did you even bother to read case book play 4.15COMMENT? The one that said that there's NO player control during a batt? You can't call a travel by rule on this play when the player regains player control unless the player actually travels AFTER regaining player control.


Bainsey, quite simply you have a very weak understanding of some very basic basketball rules. It's truly unfortunate that you a have a local IAABO board interpreter that shares that problem and can't help you out.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Bainsey, quite simply you have a very weak understanding of some very basic basketball rules. It's truly unfortunate that you a have a local IAABO board interpreter that shares that problem and can't help you out.

First of all, leave my interpreter out of this. I'm engaging in this rules dicussion; he is not. If we disagree, then fine. Let's back up our statements with facts, not attacks.

Now, my replies...

Team control is completely irrelevant when it comes to traveling. And we sureashell haven't been discussing backcourt violations.

That was Snaq's point, not mine. He was trying to inject the concept of player control into his backcourt example, and I was pointing out that's about team control, not player control. So, while you're correct that team control has nothing to do with travelling, that's not something I ever said.

How about dribble-fumble-grab ball? You do realize that's what you insist on saying has to be traveling, don't you?

You're 0-for-2, sir. I clearly stated the fumble "does not wipe the slate clean." So, dribble-fumble-grab ball = dribble-grab ball = legal.

Did you even bother to read case book play 4.15COMMENT? The one that said that there's NO player control during a batt? [sic]

Make that 0-for-3. I never said there was travelling during a bat, nor is this relevent to my point.

The very weak understanding is not my rules knowledge, sir, but rather your understanding of my point, as evident above. Or, you're ready to jump on me for disagreements we've had before, and aren't all that concerned about considering my point.

Re-read my point from earlier, and if you don't understand it, ask for clarity. Be careful what motivates you.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That was Snaq's point, not mine. He was trying to inject the concept of player control into his backcourt example, and I was pointing out that's about team control, not player control. So, while you're correct that team control has nothing to do with travelling, that's not something I ever said.

And my point was that in the play I described (rebound bat), it is all about player control because player control is required to establish team control. The point was a controlled bat does not equal player control, and that's why team control isn't an issue yet on that rebound. Since a controlled bat doesn't establish player control, the guy in this case play never re-establishes player control after the initial fumble; therefore he cannot travel.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The point was a controlled bat does not equal player control, and that's why team control isn't an issue yet on that rebound.

We agree on that, but here's the difference between your sitch and Billy's:

Yours: Rebound (no control)- tip by A-1 (still no control) - ball goes into A's backcourt, A-2 holds the ball (player control) = legal, because there was no team control in the frontcourt after the shot.

Billy's: A-1 holds the ball (player control) - A-1 fumbles - A-1 bats the ball intentionally on the floor - A-1 picks up the ball (player control) = travelling.

More succinctly, the fact that Billy's sitch started with control, and yours did not, is the key difference. Again, I see intentionally moving the ball on the floor the same as moving the ball in the air, provided there was player control on both ends.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

We agree on that, but here's the difference between your sitch and Billy's:

Yours: Rebound (no control)- tip by A-1 (still no control) - ball goes into A's backcourt, A-2 holds the ball (player control) = legal, because there was no team control in the frontcourt after the shot.

Billy's: A-1 holds the ball (player control) - A-1 fumbles - A-1 bats the ball intentionally on the floor - A-1 picks up the ball (player control) = travelling.

More succinctly, the fact that Billy's sitch started with control, and yours did not, is the key difference. Again, I see intentionally moving the ball on the floor the same as moving the ball in the air, provided there was player control on both ends.

Player control is the only relevant issue here, and that was lost in Billy's play as well, not to be regained until he picks it up.

Let's change it slightly again. A1 fumbles the ball (already used his dribble) in the air. Runs to get it and bats it in the air. He runs to get it, and bats it again (outjumps a defender) before taking two more steps to retrieve the ball.

Call?

[YooperRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Player control is the only relevant issue here, and that was lost in Billy's play as well, not to be regained until he picks it up.

Let's change it slightly again. A1 fumbles the ball (already used his dribble) in the air. Runs to get it and bats it in the air. He runs to get it, and bats it again (outjumps a defender) before taking two more steps to retrieve the ball.

Call?

Play on in the OP and play on in the new sitch.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Player control is the only relevant issue here...

It looks like that's the crux of our difference. I say team control is relevant, because if team control were lost (i.e. a try for goal), then a travel for recovering the ball would indeed be impossible. However, since team control remained throughout (i.e. the ball travelling through the air, not a shot), then travelling is still possible, IMO.

Let's change it slightly again. A1 fumbles the ball (already used his dribble) in the air. Runs to get it and bats it in the air. He runs to get it, and bats it again (outjumps a defender) before taking two more steps to retrieve the ball. Call?

Good question. Assuming he's he holding the ball prior to the fumble, it would depend upon the bats. If he's batting to chase down the ball in any direction, then I'd let it go. If he's clearly intentionally trying to move the ball to a certain spot, then I'd equate that to the ball being thrown in the air and caught by the same player, so I'd have a travel.

I suppose the issue is whether you think a fumble gives a player carte blanche to move the ball as he sees fit. I don't think so.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Billy's: A-1 holds the ball (player control) - A-1 fumbles - A-1 bats the ball intentionally on the floor - A-1 picks up the ball (player control) = traveling.

For accuracy's sake, I blew the whistle before A1 picked up the ball. I blew it after the third tap and roll (actually after the second intentional tap and roll, I judged the first tap and roll to be a fumble).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I judged the first tap and roll to be a fumble).

He'd already fumbled at this point, right? You can't fumble a ball you don't control.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For accuracy's sake, I blew the whistle before A1 picked up the ball.

Swell. I'm basing my entire point on the whistling the play on the pick up, not the bats.

Indeed the bats are not control, so I have nothing until the ball is picked up on this play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The very weak understanding is not my rules knowledge, sir, but rather your understanding of my point, as evident above.

I'm done, bainsey. I'm tired of repeating myself and it's obviously a waste of both our times.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I'm done, bainsey. I'm tired of repeating myself and it's obviously a waste of both our times.

Probably so. Suit yourself, sir. You wouldn't have to repeat yourself, anyway, if you aimed for understanding.