NFHS game last night where A1 starts his shooting motion to attempt a set shot. B1 blocks the shot so that it cannot be released and the ball is suspended; and would definetly be a held ball if this was a jump shot. However I am wondering if the fact that the shot attempt was a set shot where the shooter did not leave the floor has any bearing on calling this a jump ball?

thanks again
GTW

No effect. If the ball was prevented from being released, it is a "held ball" go to the arrow for possession. If the ball was released, even microscopically, and the blocked back into the shooter's hands, it is a blocked shot, NOT TRAVELLING, although occasionally you'll see someone call it this way. Incidentally, even if the ball-handler isn't shooting, but is just passing, if the ball is prevented from being released, it is a "held ball". AP. I'm using strictly NF rules.

re: definetly not traveling
 

thanks for the reply. To clarify it would indeed be a held ball, not a "no call" when a set shot is blocked and prevented from being released, right?

Merry Christmas!!!
GTW

Any shot which is prevented from leaving the shooter's hand would result in a jump ball and possession determined by the AP arrow.

Read the rule!
 

Sorry guys, this does not fit the definition of held ball.
4-25 Held Ball
A held ball occurs when:
Art. 1...Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.
Art. 2...An opponent places his/her hand(s) on the ball and prevents an airborne player from throwing the ball or releasing it on a try.

The situation at hand does not seem to fit into article 1 and clearly does not fall under article 2 since this part specifies airborne player.

I agree, it's a held ball.

http://www.webdeveloper.com/animatio...daffy-AGOL.gif says it's a held ball,too.

clarification
 

getting some contradictory replies so can some please clarify this for sure?

thanks
GTW

Re: Read the rule!
 

If I'm at Lead and a defender gets a hand on the ball cleanly as to keep A1 from releasing a shot, then 4-25-1 has been met. I'm going to the arrow after blowing my whistle and using the appropriate mechanics to signal a held ball. :)

But that's just me and the evaluators at the camps I attended this summer.

Re: clarification
 

For sure, I think not.

There is no clear case or rule that it is a held ball if the feet are still on the floor. As there is a rule and case if the shooter is airborne. So I go with no held ball.

The problem is, for me, if the big paw of the defender is actually holding/around the ball as the shot is being taken but the shooter retains the ball after the block. What is it then?

Then if you want to say it is a held ball on a shot than what about a pass?

Easy jump ball call. If you don't make a call, then what? Now both teams are yelling for a time out, who do you give it to? Don't be too pure call it a jump. That is what a WNBA official told me this summer. Neither coach will have a problem with it and obviously we won't either.

Those of you who don't call this play according to the rule are making it difficult for those of us that do. You are failing to educate the players and coaches on the proper rules of the game by calling this way.

Now LarryS and I disagree about whether or not this play meets the requirements of article 1, but that is fine. At least he is justifying his call with part of the rule. This so-and-so told me to call a held ball on this play so the coaches won't complain rationale is nonsense.

Your duty as an official is to follow the rule.

This seems to be a subject that is called differently in my area as well. In HS (FED) games I will call a held ball any time the shooter is prevented from releasing the ball while in the air (as long as there is not body contact before or at the same time the held ball occurs. IMO you are rewarding the defense for making a clean play in this situation and not bailing out the offense by making a no call or calling the sometimes "phantom" foul. For a player on the ground trying to go up with a shot or making a pass, if they are prevented from releasing the ball (it does not immediately get "stolen" by the defense or fall to the floor, is this not a held ball as well?? IMO the offensive player then has to attempt to "rip" the ball away from the defender and IMO that can be thought of as undue roughness. I do see a lot of ref's in my area call this differently. BUt I personally have very few coaches who have issues with it being called this way. Just my thoughts....

I'm new to this board, so go easy on me. :D I always thought that the intent of the rule about calling a held ball when an <b>airborne</b> player was prevented from releasing a shot was to ptotect the offense from an up and down violation. The held ball call at least gives the ball back to the offense half the time. As such, a blocked shot against a player still on the floor would not automatically be a held ball unless the defense demonstrates some kind of control of the ball.

SamC

Mr. Carter,
Welcome to the Hoops side! You do such a fine job on the "Diamond", I am pleased to have you here.

The intent, I believe, in all cases is to reward the defense for a good, clean play.
When a defender prevents the release of the ball for a try, or merely a pass, the act is rewarded with a held ball.
No control has to be shown other than the offensive player being unable to get the ball off their own hand. ...A sort of stalemate.
mick

See the whole play
 

I have discovered that often during our discussions we argue both sides of a situation that we have been unable to adequately portray to all the readers.

Was the defensive contact momentary such that the shooter couldn't do a good job of shooting the ball but could immediately make another attempt for a try? Did the defender come down with his hand still firmly on the ball? Are the player now fighting for control of the ball and do we have a jump ball situation per part 1 of the rule? AP

Obviously (as Juulie pointed out), part two of the rule is to prevent a travel call - airborne shooter is coming back to the floor with the ball still in his hands - defense has done a good job to create this situation. AP

If however the offense has done a good job by not jumping, still has individual control of the ball, then let him shoot or drive or whatever.

Gotta see the whole play to make a good call here.

I agree with SamNVA that the held ball on the airborn shooter was to eliminate the up and down call when the ball was stopped by the defense. This interpretation also shows that the rule does not reward good defense, because the ruling would be a travel if the intent was to reward the defense.

I also agree with DTTB that you need to see it to call it. An extended period of time with shooter pushing the ball into the defender's hand and the defender pushing back might be a clear held ball. But a stoppage of the initial shooting or passing motion where the defender's hand slides off the ball afterwards does not seem to fit the bill to me. This is different from where a shooter is in the air, because that momentary stoppage of motion usually causes the player to return to the floor without a release and is an automatic held ball.

And what is this about a team calling timeout? A defender with one hand pushing the ball does not have control - how can the defense get a TO in this situation?

I agree. A player doesn't have control, if he simply puts his hand on the ball. I don't care how long he is touching it. Therefore, no time-out should be granted, nor should a jump ball be called unless the situation is as stated in article 2.

Now you're the one not following the rule. :D

That's the whole point: neither player is controlling the ball.


A held ball occurs when:
Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.

If the defender puts his hand on the ball and prevents the offensive player from moving it, it's a held ball.

I take that wording to mean there is no individual control. I believe that a during a held ball as defined in article 1, both players have control. This is called joint control. Since player control is defined as holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds, if both players are holding the ball then both have control. That is why it is called a held ball!
But if one player is holding the ball and an opponent simply puts a hand on the ball, only the first player has control.

This joint control concept is not just something that I made up either. It is in the casebook. Play 4.43.2 B talks about A1 and A2 having joint control.

What is the difference in the two cases above?In the 2nd. case,if the opponent puts his hand on the ball,and(in the official's opinion) the player with the ball then can't do anything with it,why isn't this joint possession also?Both players are holding the ball.The only difference is that one of them is only holding it with one hand,but that one hand still fits within the rulebook definition of player control.Doesn't the same reasoning apply as in the first case?

It's not a tough rule to call.It's a jump ball if players from different teams have player possession at the same time,so that neither player can do anything with it.It's just the official's judgement if that tenet applies.

You're making stuff up, Nevada. I'm not going to waste my time referencing rules when you're bouncing myths around. Jurassic is correct, it's not a difficult call to make.

Take care!

JR, To me there is a clear difference between just putting a hand on the ball and holding the ball. My test would be if you removed the other player would the player with only one hand touching the ball be able to hold it in that position. If not, he clearly does not have control.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

It's a jump ball if players from different teams have player possession at the same time,so that neither player can do anything with it.It's just the official's judgement if that tenet applies.

I agree that there is judgment involved in making a held ball call, but I disagree with your standard. You have twice referred to a player not being able to do anything with the ball. I have never heard of this being used as a way to judge a held ball. I only go by the undue roughness standard given in the rules book.
If I were holding the ball with both hands, I don't see how an opponent could possibly make it such that I could not obtain clear control without using undue roughness by only placing one hand against the ball.
I am unconvinced that his hand touching the ball constitutes holding the ball for the purpose of control. Well, maybe if my opponent were Dr. J and he used his enormous hand to wrap almost entirely around the ball....

I just thought of a play that I'd like your and Tony's opinions on. I'll post it in a new thread.

PS Tony, no one is going to agree with your statement that I am making stuff up in that last post. I even went the extra mile to quote a play from the NFHS case book to prove my assertion that joint control is a valid and accepted concept.

Re: Read the rule!
 

Merry Chrismas and Happy New Year everybody!! My family and I got back from a week visiting family in Orlando this afternoon, so I am joining the thread a little late.

Nevada is absolutely correct. The play as described in the original post is nothing. The first rule of officiating basketball is: you have nothing until you have something. In the original post nothing happened. Let play continue and let the howler monkeys howl. Second rule of all sports officiating is: don't call anything you can't explain, and easily applied to this play.

Too many officials look for something where there really is nothing.

If a defender has one hand on the ball and the ball is not on the floor, the ball can be easily moved away from the defender's hand without undue roughness. This rule generally only applies when each player has two hands on the ball.

I think it is a huge stretch to say that a defender placing a hand on the ball causes the offensive player to lose player control.

If a defender has one hand on the ball and the ball is not on the floor, the ball can be easily moved away from the defender's hand without undue roughness. This rule generally only applies when each player has two hands on the ball.

I think it is a huge stretch to say that a defender placing a hand on the ball causes the offensive player to lose player control. [/B][/QUOTE]Let' see now:
1)A1 is on the floor with the ball trapped firmly between his arm and his body.B1 is lying next to him with his hands on the ball.
2)A1 is lying on the floor with the ball trapped firmly between his legs.B1,lying partially on him,has one hand on the ball.
In both cases,the ball is caught(or pinned)firmly enough that neither player can do anything with it.
In both cases,Nevada and Coach say that it is not a jump ball.

Please tell me what what I do call in these cases,if anything.Or do I just let 'em wrassle around until the ball comes loose or one player ends up with both hands on it.

The intent of the rule is to call a held ball when two opposing players have enough equal control of the ball that their opposite number is unable to do anything with it(dribble,pass,shoot,etc.).That's how we judge it,and that's how we call it.

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

Let' see now:
1)A1 is on the floor with the ball trapped firmly between his arm and his body.B1 is lying next to him with his hands on the ball.
2)A1 is lying on the floor with the ball trapped firmly between his legs.B1,lying partially on him,has one hand on the ball.
In both cases,the ball is caught(or pinned)firmly enough that neither player can do anything with it.
In both cases,Nevada and Coach say that it is not a jump ball.

Please tell me what what I do call in these cases,if anything.Or do I just let 'em wrassle around until the ball comes loose or one player ends up with both hands on it.

The intent of the rule is to call a held ball when two opposing players have enough equal control of the ball that their opposite number is unable to do anything with it(dribble,pass,shoot,etc.).That's how we judge it,and that's how we call it. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR
You are completely off the original case, where a shot or a pass attempt is pushed back at the offensive player. 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. I agree completely with calling the held ball in the case you cite.

I am merely trying to makie the point that the blocked shot attempt when a shooter is airborn and returns to the floor is a very specific situation covered by rule that has nothing to do with the first, and most commonly invoked, held ball provision.

The language of the very first post of this thread states "blocks the set shot so it CAN'T be released and the ball is SUSPENDED,and WOULD DEFINITELY BE A HELD BALL IF THIS WAS A JUMP SHOT". What I'm trying to point out,guys,is that if the official thought that it met the definition and criteria of a held ball,then it IS a held ball-no matter where it occurs.

I've been referring to the description given above in all my responses.

I think it is a huge stretch to say that a defender placing a hand on the ball causes the offensive player to lose player control. [/B][/QUOTE]
You are completely off the original case, where a shot or a pass attempt is pushed back at the offensive player. 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. I agree completely with calling the held ball in the case you cite.

I am merely trying to make the point that the blocked shot attempt when a shooter is airborn and returns to the floor is a very specific situation covered by rule that has nothing to do with the first, and most commonly invoked, held ball provision. [/B][/QUOTE]Coach,we do agree on the last point that you wrote above.
Now,quoting Nevada who said "but if one player is holding the ball and an opponent simply puts a hand on the ball,only the first player has control",my points still are:
1)If,in the official's opinion,the opponent puts his one hand on the ball so that the player originally holding the ball cannot shoot,dribble,pass or wind his watch,then you have to call a held ball.
2)With regards to your 1st. statement above,I'm also saying that a defensive player placing one hand on the ball could POSSIBLY cause the offensive player to lose solitary player control.That's up to the opinion of the official.That's why I quoted those different situations-to try and point out that fact.That's also why I agreed with Tony that you use the first part of the definition.It's all-purpose language,and it's the only language that we have available to us to use(including having to use it in those other situations that I cited).

Ah, but this IS different
 

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.

Re: Not really
 

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.

Tongu Stud part 2...
 

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

Re: Tongu Stud part 2...
 

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.

Re: Tongu Stud part 2...
 

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.

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.

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?:D

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. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/thumb.gif

SamC

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 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.

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.