block = jump ball?

[Hawks Coach]

The problem here is that people have been refering to the concepts of the first part of the held ball rule, and saying they apply to the second part. I strongly disagree. The second component of this rule refers to a specific circumstance where the shot release of an airborn player is prevented, after which the shooter will always return to the floor without having released the ball. This rule exists because you must make some call when the player returns to the floor without releasing the ball. If this was not defined by rule as a held ball, it would be a travel.

I don't agree that pushing a ball downward when the shooter is on the floor constitutes a held ball unless both players decide to remain pushing the ball in opposite directions. The offensive player should be allowed to disengage and make a play. Nothing in the rulebook suggests otherwise. The rule would not be specific about the need to be airborn if it meant anything but airborn.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
The offensive player should be allowed to disengage and make a play. Nothing in the rulebook suggests otherwise. The rule would not be specific about the need to be airborn if it meant anything but airborn.

Coach,all that that I've been trying to say is that it IS a held ball if the offensive player is UNABLE to disengage when they try,in the referee's opinion.That's all Tony was trying to say,too.

[Mregor]

What if the offensive player was wearing a tongue stud and the defensive player was wearing jewelry under their wristband and lying about it? What would you have then? Now back to the point. It is a held ball if the official calls it a held ball. Whether they are right or wrong is another matter. In the ORIGINAL case as stated, it is only a held ball if the both players have such a firm hold on the ball that they can't get it away wihout unde roughness. Period. How you define that is ann interpretation and will vary from one to the next. That is why thye don't officiate with a computer, it is an interpretation. That being said, I say just becuase a set shot is prevented form being released, does not constitute an automatic jump ball. I believe Hawk's Coach is correct (That's a first for me!) in that it applies to an airborne shooter because otherwise it would be a travel call. Personally, I don't call many held balls and I despise the occasional partner who calls one from across the court when it is right in front of me. I think the held ball is called to quickly, especially in younger games. It breaks up the flow and rewards reaching at the younger ages.

Mregor

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mregor
In the ORIGINAL case as stated, it is only a held ball if the both players have such a firm hold on the ball that they can't get it away wihout unde roughness. Period.

That's exactly what I've been trying to point out.One hand or two,between the legs,under the body--it all goes back to whether they each have a firm hold on the ball(in the official's opinion),not how or where they have a firm hold on the ball.

[LarryS]

Originally posted by Mregor
I think the held ball is called to quickly, especially in younger games. It breaks up the flow and rewards reaching at the younger ages.

Mregor

That is a good point. I have been forcing myself to hold my whistle for a second or two so the players have a chance. Then I have a situation like Saturday morning. Girls varsity, two girls struggling to gain control near the top of the key with other players standing around watching. I think, "held ball...wait...", and A1 twist a little and gets lone control. Problem is when she twist, B1 now has a grasp on A1's arm and causes A1 to lose her balance. Now I have four options; (1) Very late held ball whistle...not the best choice (2)Travel on A1...doesn't seem fair or right (3) Hold on B1...if I would have called the held ball she would not have held (4) call nothing and act dumb. While #4 would have been the easiest, I chose to call the hold simply because it was obvious to everyone.

Next time I didn't wait on the held ball call.

[Hawks Coach]

JR
My last reply crossed with your second consecutive reply on Page 2. I would also say that we pretty much agree on all points here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
JR
My last reply crossed with your second consecutive reply on Page 2. I would also say that we pretty much agree on all points here.

I thought that we did,too,Coach.That's why I kept trying to clarify things.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by SamNVa

Mr. Jurassic Referee,

I don't NevadaRef or Hawks Coach would have a problem calling a held ball in either of the two situations you describe. I know that I would not. However the original situation was a set shot being blocked by a defender. In this case, I can't imagine a situation where the offensive player would not be able to easily pull the ball away from the defender. That's why generally I would not call a held ball in that case, of course as DTTB stated, all situations like this are HTBT calls.

SamC

Sam,the referee that made the original post,and was there,stated that the offensive player couldn't pull the ball away because it was suspended,and that the play met the criteria(in his opinion)of a held ball.That's what I've been basing my replies on.I'm not second-guessing him,and I don't intend to.

Btw,do I get to put a "sic" in your first sentence above for leaving out a verb?

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Sam,the referee that made the original post,and was there,stated that the offensive player couldn't pull the ball away because it was suspended,and that the play met the criteria(in his opinion)of a held ball.That's what I've been basing my replies on.I'm not second-guessing him,and I don't intend to.

Btw,do I get to put a "sic" in your first sentence above for leaving out a verb?

JR,

I agree that if the referee thought that the ball was in fact a held ball, then he was justified in calling it. My only reason for continuing the discussion is simply to make the point that except in the case of an airborne shooter, the simple action of blocking a shot is not always a held ball.

And feel free to correct my posts and add a (sic) whenever you like.

SamC

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Tony has been trying to argue that you could apply the first part of the held ball rule to this specific situation. I do not argue that there is never a time when the ball can get pinned by one hand - just that the blocked set shot and blocked pass is not one of those times where you can invoke the first held ball provision.

Can you tell me where I can read this interpretation, Coach?

I'm not maintaining that this is ALWAYS a held ball but it certainly sounds like it in this situation. I stay away from always and never for the most part.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by SamNVa
[/B]

I agree that if the referee thought that the ball was in fact a held ball, then he was justified in calling it. My only reason for continuing the discussion is simply to make the point that except in the case of an airborne shooter, the simple action of blocking a shot is not always a held ball.[/B][/QUOTE]I was pretty sure that was what you meant,Sam.Your first post way back on p.1 was right on target,I thought.I was just trying to be sure.I think that we agreed all along on the basic concept,too.

I see that you got the "smilie" habit,too.I'm getting hooked on the little buggers.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Can you tell me where I can read this interpretation, Coach?

I'm not maintaining that this is ALWAYS a held ball but it certainly sounds like it in this situation. I stay away from always and never for the most part.

I don't mean this as a never - sorry if it reads that way. What I do mean is that generally speaking, the rejected shot attempt of the airborn shooter or of the shooter on the floor frequently does not meet the first article of 4-25. That is why there is a separate and distinct 4-25-2.

The original question was asking whether you could apply 4-25-2 to a shooter on the floor. I do not believe you can or should use 4-25-2 ever (that would be my NEVER in this case) in the case of a shooter on the floor. I don;'t think any provision that relates specifically and only to airborn players ever applies to players on the floor. If the shot rejection of a shooter on the floor results in a tie-up that meets the conditions of 4-25-1, so be it - you have a held ball.