What's The Correct Call ???

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

I say you have no rules basis for this distinction. Player control is required to travel, and batting the ball very specifically does not constitute player control.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

No, the issue is whether you can add stuff to the rules to distinguish between different plays that really, in the end, use the same rules. There is no rule-based distinction between the rebound-bat and the fumble-bat plays.

Again, a controlled bat does not equal player control no matter how much you want it to.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Player control is required to travel, and batting the ball very specifically does not constitute player control.

Very well, then.

We've established that holding a ball, throwing it (not a try), running several steps, and catching it is travelling.

Let's say A-1 holds the ball, tosses it in the air, BATS IT, runs several steps, and catches it. Is this legal?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Very well, then.

We've established that holding a ball, throwing it (not a try), running several steps, and catching it is travelling.

Let's say A-1 holds the ball, tosses it in the air, BATS IT, runs several steps, and catches it. Is this legal?

Nope. That's an illegal dribble that has recently been unceremoniously changed to a travel. The key to the play in the OP is the fact that the player traveled and thus ended player control.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Sorry.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sorry.

Don't you apologize, Billy. *I* misread it!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Sorry, but the pickup is merely the retrieval of a fumble. Perfectly legal. What precedes is irrelevant as long as player control is never re-established.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sorry, but the pickup is merely the retrieval of a fumble. Perfectly legal. What precedes is irrelevant as long as player control is never re-established.

Well, upon a second look at looking at the O.P., I have nothing. I see perhaps one or two interrupted dribbles, but nothing more.

My apologies for any confusion.