Over and back rule
 

This question stems from two calls I have seen made in the past few weeks: one in a Big Ten game and one in an intramural game. The call in question is the over and back call. I know all the good stuff about the three points and so on, but my question deals more with the actual possession of the ball.

In both cases the ball was tipped back on a rebound attempt by a member of the shooting team. In the Big Ten game it was a free throw attempt and the intramural game was on a field goal attempt. The rebounder slapped the ball backwards and it was recovered by the "shooting" teams only to be called over and back in both situations.

The intramural call was against my team and they turned to me to ask if it was the correct call (I'm an IM official as well) I told some of my teammates it was the correct call (based on what I had seen in the Big Ten matchup a few weeks ago). Anyone have a good answer for this? Correct call or not and why?

If the ball was merely tipped or slapped, this was not the correct call because there was no team control in the frontcourt.

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?

I'm fairly certain about the big ten game, It was an IU game I was at and I complained about the call at the time but decided in my head it must have been correct because as you said a Big Ten official wouldn't miss that. I guess he felt that the player had enough control of the ball that he "threw/passed" it back out.

That's the only thing that comes to mind.

By the way dbm, check your PM inbox, upper right hand corner.

Assembly Hall
 

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!

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

As APG said, that's completely wrong by rule. The criteria needed to make the correct call is whether there was player control established or not...i.e if the ball came to rest. No player control = no team control. What direction the ball is tapped in has got nothing to do with the call rules-wise.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely, one can control the direction of a tip/tap without holding the ball. In fact, the whole sport of volleyball is built around controlling a ball by tipping, tapping and striking a ball without ever holding it.

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.

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."

Catch 22 ???
 

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.

Holding ???
 

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?

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.

Ball Comes To Rest ...
 

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Bat Away ...
 

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.

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.

I Am Nothing But A Lowly Grasshopper ...
 

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.)

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. :)