Over and back rule

[Adam]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

While I agree with your point here...

One could question whether a player could "control the direction of a tip/tap"- without holding the ball. Even if momentarily (splitting atoms here), If a player rotates their hand to direct a tap would you consider this holding the ball? If a player does this while dribbling we call it a "carry".

We call the carry when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, which is virtually the same way we determine if they held it.

If, however, a dribbler taps the ball upwards, this is perfectly legal as long as it hits the floor before the dribbler touches the ball again. It's perfectly possible for a player to "control" a tap to a teammate (or away from an opponent) without ever gaining player control. Whether the ball goes where it was intended to go is not relevant.

[Blindolbat]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Are you sure it happened as you said in the Big Ten game? Cause for an official at that level to miss such an easy call is hard to fathom. Perhaps, there was a moment where a player held the ball briefly?

Ha. Saw it happen in a Pac-10 game last week. Over and back right in front of one of the officials. No call. All of a sudden the official from across the court realizes there wasn't going to be a call so he blew his whistle and ran in from about 40 feet away with the correct call. The guy who should've made the call just stood there dumbfounded for a couple seconds and then shook his head like, "oops, I guess I should've called that."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

If you would grant a timeout during said "control", then you've determined that there was player control. If there's player control, then there's team control.

Circular logic. We've got to break this circle. It's been going on for far too long. Time for the NFHS to define "holding". They've defined just about everything else that occurs in the game.

Grant a timeout? Yes, if player is holding ball.
Player holding ball? Yes, if you would grant a timeout.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The whole sport of volleyball is built around controlling a ball by tipping, tapping and striking a ball without ever holding it.

Good point. How does the NHFS define holding (going way back to my high school physical education classes: holding is illegal) in the volleyball rules?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Circular logic. We've got to break this circle. It's been going on for far too long. Time for the NFHS to define "holding". They've defined just about everything else that occurs in the game.

What part of "the ball comes to rest" can't you understand, Billy? You know...rules 4-15-4(a) and 4-15-4(b)?

Now you're creating your very own Myth.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What part of "the ball comes to rest" can't you understand, Billy? You know...rules 4-15-4(a) and 4-15-4(b)?

Now you're creating your very own Myth.

And as Bob says, sometimes you just have to referee.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What part of "the ball comes to rest" can't you understand, Billy? You know...rules 4-15-4(a) and 4-15-4(b)?

The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both
hands.

The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or
both hands.

I know when a player is holding the ball. As Snaqwells, and bob jenkins, stated, it's part of refereeing.

I just don't think that we should be defining holding with a question as to whether, or not, we should be granting a request for a timeout, although the logic is, by rule, correct. Use the phrase, "the ball comes to rest", to decide whether, or not, to grant a timeout, or whether, or not, a player is holding a ball.

Grant a timeout? Yes, if the ball has come to rest in a player's hand.
Player holding ball? Yes, if the ball has come to rest in a player's hand.

It's neater, and I believe, more logical.

[Adam]

Billy, no one has used that question as a definition. It's a helpful guide, nothing more.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Circular logic. We've got to break this circle. It's been going on for far too long. Time for the NFHS to define "holding". They've defined just about everything else that occurs in the game.

Grant a timeout? Yes, if player is holding ball.
Player holding ball? Yes, if you would grant a timeout.

Perhaps you just think WAY too hard about this. The NFHS doesn't need to define every little single thing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both
hands.

The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or
both hands.

I just don't think that we should be defining holding with a question as to whether, or not, we should be granting a request for a timeout, although the logic is, by rule, correct. Use the phrase, "the ball comes to rest", to decide whether, or not, to grant a timeout, or whether, or not, a player is holding a ball.

Grant a timeout? Yes, if the ball has come to rest in a player's hand.
Player holding ball? Yes, if the ball has come to rest in a player's hand.

It's neater, and I believe, more logical.

Paralysis through analysis.

It`s a judgment call. And the judgment is, was and always will be whether the ball comes to rest in a player`s hand(s). It is that simple.

All your `logic`is doing is confusing people imo.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Paralysis through analysis.

It`s a judgment call. And the judgment is, was and always will be whether the ball comes to rest in a player`s hand(s). It is that simple.

All your `logic`is doing is confusing people imo.

+1. I'll call it when I see it and my call will be, by definition, the correct one. It's purely a judgment call.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by dbking

If the call was against IU, then correct call. If for IU, obviously incorrect call.

Great to have the brooms out on Wednesday night.....

I will tell you that this is all a matter of HTBT. If the official determines that the tip was a controlled tip in the direction of the player, then it should be a b/c violation. If it is truely just a tap of the ball with zero direction control, then no b/c violation.

Assembly Hall has a long history of incidents. Just ask Steve Reid about the chair.....

BOILER UP!

Yeah, like hanging all those National Championship Banners............

[NoFussRef]

Great responses! Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

One could question whether a player could "control the direction of a tip/tap"- without holding the ball.

Of course you can. What happens on every jump ball to start every game??? The two jumpers try to bat the ball in a certain direction. They're not just flailing away, hoping to make contact. They're trying (or at least, hoping) to direct to a teammate.

But they obviously are not allowed to hold the ball; that would be a violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What happens on every jump ball to start every game??? The two jumpers try to bat the ball in a certain direction. They're trying (or at least, hoping) to direct to a teammate. But they obviously are not allowed to hold the ball; that would be a violation.

Good point. Similar to the volleyball analogy, above.

Of course, we could always ask ourselves if we would grant a request for a timeout during the bat in a jump ball? That would clinch the deal.