AP or OOB
 

From a pick-up game:

A1 and B1 are going after a loose ball. Both players have their hands on the ball,but you have not yet decided it warrants a held ball call. A1 steps on the line. OOB to B (as A1 caused the ball to be OOB) or AP (b/c there was joint possession at the time the ball attained OOB status).

Does rule set matter?

If either player is OOB, it's a violation, not a held ball.

I had a play almost like this...

A1 and B1 are going for a rebound. Both players jump, catch the ball, and both players land out of bounds at the same time. Had to think about it for a split second, but went to the arrow.

No, the rule set doesn't matter.

The OOB "power" doesn't transfer from A1 to the ball and then to B1.

Where I get this play often is after a shot attempt and the rebound goes towards the end line. A4 and B4 both go for the ball and I'd say a dozen times per year, one of the players touches the end line or beyond while touching the ball in an attempt to gain full control - all the while their opponent is doing the same thing, but inbounds.

You should know that the rule set matters. :)

Fiba rules:
What they mean for "during" is precisely the situation you are describing.

Ciao

Yes, eg-i, you're right.

But when answering these guys, I assume these guys don't want a FIBA ruling. LOL

They don't know what they're missing. :D

Ciao

How can he be right? He said "during a held ball". The situation that you described occurred before a held ball("while touching the ball in an attempt to gain full control"...in your words) . They're completely different situations, aren't they?

Pizza and lasagna...

Nothing happens during a held ball. When a held ball happens, the ball is dead.

Thx all . . . am I gonna mention FIBA at the gym? . . . nah, don't think so . . . (well, maybe to the other rule geek . . .)

JAR is correct.

But most people describe the action that precedes the judgment of the ball becoming dead as being "during a held ball".

The FIBA rule is that they want the held ball to be enforced, rather than a violation. So their interp is that once a player commits a violation by stepping out of bounds or by returning to his backcourt, all the while two opponents are still tugging at the ball (but not yet untoward), the play is automatically deemed to be a held ball.

<font color = red>Fixed it for ya.</font>

Sooooo....if one opponent steps OOB while tugging at the ball, even though one player never gained control of the ball and the ball might even subsequently come loose without there ever being dual possession attained, the FIBA call is a held ball even though there never was a held ball.

Got it.

Great logic. Have a held ball even when there never was a held ball.

Gee, I can't figure out why that particular logic has never caught on in the other rulesets. :)

Stoopid FIBA rulesmaker monkeys.

I'm not a fan of this ruling, but it's not enforced as you believe. When judging a possible held ball there's an interval of time when both players have (almost) control of the ball: the official must wait and see if all conditions for a held ball are present (no one can get ball control without undue roughness, for instance). If in that interval of time one of the players involved steps OOB, FIBA requires that a held ball is called. That's all.

If an OOB player touches a ball in control of a player in bounds it's simply OOB, of course. Would you call a held ball as soon as a player puts both hands on the ball in control of an opponent? I guess you won't; we won't either, even if the first player steps OOB before the "initial" conditions for a held ball are present.

Ciao

Frankly, I think that's how we call it in NFHS, too. If he steps OOB before both players have secured the ball, OOB. If he does it after, even if my whistle hasn't blown yet, held ball.

Basketball is played inbounds. When a player goes OB, they have an advantage. However, FIBA believes (my speculation here) that "during the held ball", a player might be OB, but not on his own accord and without undue roughness. So, they've decided to go beyond an A.R. and just make it a rule.

If so, it does nothing except increase consistency.

1) It's enforced exactly as I said above. You don't have dual control but you treat it like there was dual control. That illogical imo.

2) No, but if that player was OOB when he first puts both hands on the ball, we do call a violation on him. We also call a violation on that player if he steps OOB anytime after he first puts both hands on the ball but before dual control is attained. Under FIBA rules, you don't.

It is what it is....a FIBA rule....but it just isn't logical to me.

Nope, frankly that's not how it's supposed to be called under NFHS rules. I think you're calling it completely wrong by rule. You're granting a held ball before dual possesssion is attained. You're calling a held ball when a violation has occurred.

It's a simple call. See post #2 by BktBallRef.

How is he wrong? He says the OOB is after both players have secured the ball.

There's the post I've been referring to, JAR. No dual possession.Almost control isn't control. But while waiting to see if dual possession is obtained, if one player steps OOB you still call the held ball under FIBA rules. We don't. We call a violation because there wasn't dual control when the player stepped OOB while touching the ball.

That was my point all along.

How many FIBA games did you see? :)

Your concept of dual possession is, approximately, "when no player can get control without undue roughness", at least in that case play. Well, FIBA just adds something to the concept of dual control.

Is it logical to you that the CE "failure to award merited free throws" can lead to a five or six point play? You fail to award bonus free throws to team A, which scores a three point field goal (maybe with a foul): three points, error correction (other two points) and possible bonus free throw. This makes 5 or 6 instead of 2. To me it isn't logical. :) Under FIBA rules this can only lead to a three or four point play, because in this case the error is disregarded.

Every rule set has its not so logical parts.

Ciao

So if, in the time between when my brain recognizes a held ball has occured and my whistle blows, B1 steps OOB, you're saying I should call the violation rather than the held ball for which my whistle was about to blow when B1 stepped on the line?

No, I'm saying that if you're saying that we call held balls the same way that FIBA is, you're completely wrong by rule. The situation that you're discussing above is not the same situation that eg-italy was talking about. He's talking about calling a held ball by FIBA rule when one opponent steps OOB while touching the ball and there never was dual possession at the time the player stepped OOB. Iow, a held ball never occurred before the player stepped OOB.

Our rules and the FIBA rules...as per the discussion in this thread.. are completely different.

That's what I'm saying.

What has that got to do with anything if I understand the difference between the two rulesets? :confused:

Then I misread him; I thought he was calling it my way. Not the first time I've misread someone.

I thought maybe you did. I know you knew the correct NFHS and NCAA rule.

Force Out ???
 

Back when I was young enough to play playground basketball we had a "force out rule". I'm not sure that I remember it being called in a "real" game. Was this ever a real NFHS rule, or is it one of those playground myths?

You think you know perfectly how that rule is enforced. Actually you don't.

Ciao

I went by YOUR description of how FIBA enforces their rule. Are you telling me that you lied to me and I shouldn't believe you?

OK. Got it.

Never an NFHS or NCAA rule. It was an old NBA rule though.