Over and back rule

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Controlled tip does not equate to team control which is gained by HOLDING or dribbling the ball.

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".

[APG]

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".

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I just don't think that we should be defining holding with a question

We're (or at least I'm) not defining it with a question. While many officials have trouble with the "was it a throw or a bat" question, very few have trouble with the "would you grant a TO" question. Once they see that the questions are the same, then they have no trouble with the former.

It's a teaching tool. Like all such items, if it doesn't work for you, don't use it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We're not defining it with a question. While many officials have trouble with the "was it a throw or a bat" question, very few have trouble with the "would you grant a TO" question. Once they see that the questions are the same, then they have no trouble with the former. It's a teaching tool..

Sounds good, as long as you don't use it, as you've already stated, as a some type of quasi definition.

Kind of like a simple litmus test?

By the way, I would not grant a request for a timeout while the ball is being tapped (batted), even if it was a controlled tap (bat), during a jump ball.

Guess the litmus paper turned red in this situation? (Thanks to Scrapper1 for the jump ball analogy.)

[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.

[M&M Guy]

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".

These are the key words. If you say the player is not holding the ball, than how can you call it player control, by rule?

In your second example, "rotating the hand" has no basis in the rules. If, however, while dribbling the ball the ball comes to rest in the hand, than you would consider that holding the ball, and thus any additional dribble would be an illegal dribble.

[bob jenkins]

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".

You're allowed to "bat the ball away from other players" (or some such wording) without it establishing PC, and that seems to be the same as "controlling the direction of a tip/tap".

There's a difference between that and "throwing" the ball.

Sometimes you just need to officiate.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

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".

It's always a judgment call if player control is established on a tip. If the ball comes to rest in the official's judgment, then player control and thus team control are established. What isn't part of the judgment EVER is the direction in which the ball is tipped. That is completely irrelevant rules-wise, no matter how many atoms you split. Whether the hand was rotated or not is also completely irrelevant.

All that matters is whether the ball came to rest or not.