Over and back rule

[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.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Agree. If you can cite a pertinent rule, then just cite it....instead of citing something completely quasi like....oh.....maybe something completely un-official like one of your Mythbusters.

[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.