Had mediocre (play was sloppy) game last night with a partner that I hadn't worked with in at least two years. Partner has 27 years of experience versus my 12.

He was the Ref and did NO PREGAME WITH ME. I forced the issue and discussed a few things about the idosyncracies of the court - double lines along the court edges black line, 1 inch gap and then 24" wide color stripe; several lines at the mid court division lines; strap above the basket. We also discussed a little about last minute shoots and alignment with the clock. That was it. Our coverage was not bad but it never felt comfortable. We called a little bit different style of game and perhaps that was what made it feel uncomfortable.

One of those differences was held ball on an airborne shooter. I had learned, and thought I understood the rule, that if the shooter goes up and the defender gets a hand on the ball such that the shooter comes back down with both of them still holding the ball - held ball. No problem. I also learned that if the ball came free before the shooter returned to the floor - NO HELD BALL. My partner called it twice the other way - the shooter was at his peak height, the ball comes out so no one has a hand on it, it falls to the floor and he calls held ball. He made the same call two different times.

No one says anything about his call. I made the unwise decision of asking him about it during the third quarter. He was adamant that two player's hands on the ball was always a jump - independent of the undue roughness issue, independent of airborne status of the shooter. I remember saying something along the lines of "the reason you call a held ball is so the shooter doesn't return to the floor having traveled. But if the ball comes free, you've got nothing but good defense and play continues." He didn't like that and wouldn't let it alone. He called me aside twice during the remainder of the game (not during held ball situations - just to continue the "discussion") and wanted to straighten me out. At the conclusion of the game, he really wanted to straighten me out to the point of arguing in front of the home administator.

I finally stated louder than my normal voice but still quieter than his " I got it. I've heard you - again and again. Would you listen to me?" His response was "Don't tell me to shut up!" and "You're not gonna tell me how to call a game until you out rank me. Until you rate higher than I do, you're not gonna tell me how to call anything."

A simple questioning attitude had turned into my evening's nightmare.

We didn't say a word to each other for at least 5 minutes (Now, I've got about an hour long ride home with him).

We got into the car and I appologised profusely. " I did not intend this to be a one-upmanship deal. I wasn't trying to tell you that you were wrong. I just learned the rule differently than you were calling it. The rule book doesn't even seem to support my position." The ride home was okay but no more comfortable than the game.

Okay, enough of my frightmare. What the heck is the rule and how should it be called?

Rule 4-25-2 says "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."

CB play 4.25.2 says "A1 jumps to try for a goal... B1... puts his/her hand on the ball and keep(s) A1 from releasing it. A1 .... is unable to control the ball and it drops to the floor. Ruling: A held ball results immediately ... when airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball to pass or try for goal.

I thought I understood this quite well. Maybe it was just because I was lambasted by my partner but these two don't even seem to support my understanding.

Believe me I'm not going to go back and report to my partner. Just let me know how this play should be called. I don't have anymore games scheduled with him.

Releasing is a good word. It supports my position. However the casebook says "releasing... to pass or try."

I screwed up by even attempting to discuss it with him but did I screw up the rule?

As I have understood this rule:
1. If the ball comes immediately out when the defense hits it, it was knocked away - play on, good defense.
2. If the defense forces the ball to stop its motion before release, but the offensive player is able to retain control and get a release on a try or pass - play on, good offense.
3. If the defense forces the ball to stop its motion or pushes it back the other way, and the ball later comes free (and you can see this distinctly), it was a held ball before it came loose.
4. If the defense forces the ball to stop its motion or pushes it back the other way, and the offensive player gets slick and decides to drop the ball right before landing (thinking he is avoiding a travel or a held ball), it's too late - held ball before it was dropped but bonus points for effort to the offense)

The difference between 1 and 3 is a matter of judgment, but there are clearly certain times where the defense knocks the ball out of a player's hands, and others where the defense gets the ball, but it only comes loose later.

Hawks Coach, I think you are walking a fine line trying to distinguish between #2 and #3.
The casebook play clearly says to call a held ball IMMEDIATELY when the airborne offensive player is prevented from releasing the ball on a try or pass.
Now, I will concede that officials must walk the tightrope when judging whether the ball was blocked and then came free (play on) or was prevented from being released initially (call held ball here, by rule) and then came free later.
I don't know if the rule was the same ten years ago when I was in HS, but we lost a game by 2, when my teammate prevented the release of a shot by an airborne player up high, who then was able to make a fantastic play and release the ball from his hip before his feet returned to the floor and thus score the winning basket. I could care less about the game now, but just wonder what the rule said back then.

I am not walking a fine line - a player is in the air and releases a ball under his own power on a shot or pass, it is a release. He was not prevented from releasing the ball, which is what the rule states.

As for the case book, I believe that both cases I cite as held balls are backed in the case book example.

HELD BALL
4.25.2 SITUATION: A1 jumps to try for goal or to pass the ball. B1 leaps or reaches and is able to put his/her hands on the ball and keep A1 from releasing it. A1: (a) returns to the floor with the ball; or (b) is unable to control the ball and it drops to the floor. Ruling: A held ball results immediately in (a) and (b) when airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball to pass or try for goal.

This goes back to the discussion of the original intent of this rule, which I believe was to prevent the up and down call on a situation where the defense prevents the release. Unfortunately, the rulebook and casebook are silent on the airborn player who has a release temporarily prevented byut who successfully releases the ball before returning to the floor.

My belief is this is a good offensive play which should be rewarded, and that allowing this play to continue to completion does not violate the spirit or intent of the rule.

Hawks Coach,

I have to agree with Nevadaref on this one. In both cases #2 & 3 the offensive player won't have a chance to retain possession in my games because I have already blown the play dead for a held ball. This is such a bang bang play that if you wait to see if the ball is being pushed backwards it may be too late to make the call. I make the call as soon as the defender has stopped the forward motion of the ball. I also agree with you that the rule was put in to prevent a traveling call in this situation. That is why an official needs to call the held ball as soon as the shooter can't continue the forward motion of the ball due to the defender getting their hand on the ball.

I agree with Da Coach. I also agree with his reasoning.Let the play finish,see what ya got,and then make your call(or no call).

The rule has basically been the same for as long as I can remember,Nevada.In the play above,the bottom line is your teammate did NOT prevent the release of a shot-so it couldn't have been a jump ball.The shooter made a good play,and the ref was right to hold up on his whistle to see IF the shooter could make that play.

THANK YOU
 

It sounds like I need to be a little quicker to call the held ball for an airborne shooter....

The Casebook uses the words "unable to control the ball and it drops to the floor... => HELD BALL"

So perhaps my rule of thumb should be - unless the results is:[list=A][*]a clearly blocked ball that is immediately knocked from the shooters hands or[*]the shooter is able to maintain control (not loose the ball) to the point of pulling it away from the defender's hand and still release it on a try or pass[/list=A]

I should be calling held ball.

I clearly agree with Hawk's #1, & 4 and see plainly that there is much judgement/latitude in #2, & 3.

My current inclination is that if the shooter is still continuing in his upward motion, he has opportunity to maintain control and recover such that a pass or try could be made ==> hold my whistle. If however, the result is that an obvious try or pass cannot, or is not made (ball simply squirts out or falls to the ground), I should be calling a held ball.

Anyone see anything wrong with that line of reasoning?

Rule casebook 4.25.2 has been quoted in this discussion. It clearly indicates that when the airborne player is prevented from relaesing the ball on a pass or try the call is a held ball.
Noe one has quoted casebook play 4.43.3. It has parts a-b-c-d. the final conclusion of all the play variations is that since touching did not prevent the pass or try, th ball remains alive. I am too laxy to type the whole thing so please consult it. this conclusion seems to make the play where the player was prevented from release at the top, but then shot from the hip, it is a legal play because the ball was able to be released.
I have had to read these two plays every year to refocus on the correct calls. this discussion has helped to clarify.

Hawks Coach and JR,
It seems that there is some problem in defining what it means to prevent the release of the ball.
If we take the play I said happened in my HS game as our example, the question becomes: When, if ever, did my teammate prevent the shooter from releasing the ball on a try?
When the shooter reached the apex of his jump he clearly tried to release the ball on a try, but was unable to do so because my teammate had his hand on the ball. Does this meet the requirement right here? The ruling in 4.25.2 does say that a held ball results IMMEDIATELY. If this word was not in there I would be arguing on your side. I understand your position to be that because the shooter kept possession of the ball and was able to EVENTUALLY release the ball on a try that the release really was not prevented and that play should continue.
I am just troubled by the time reference in the casebook. Until I read this very closely last year, I thought exactly as you do.
PS At least you would not yell at me for calling a 10 second violation because the defense knocked the ball loose at the count of 6 and then after a scramble the offense recovered the ball while still in the backcourt at the count of 9 and was unable to advance the ball past the division line before I reached ten, as one rules-knowledge-deprived howler monkey did today. :)

Nevada,I don't have any problem at all defining what it means to prevent the release of a ball.If the shooter actually releases the ball for a shot before coming back down,he surashell wasn't prevented from doing so.That's also exactly why there was no jump ball called in your high school game.I can't see how anyone could possibly argue that the shot couldn't be released,when it WAS!

Note that CB4.25.2 that you are referring to also states B1 kept A1 from releasing the ball.That's why it results in an "immediate" jump ball.No release=jump ball! Release=no call!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 19th, 2003 at 06:53 AM]

JR,

What I am saying is if the defender has his hand on the ball to prevent it from being released at the start of the shot, I am calling a held ball. If he releases it from his hip on his way down is irrelevant because the whistle has already blown. That is the point of immediately calling the held ball. I don't think you can hold your whistle in this situation under the rules.

By doing this, you are taking away one helluva offensive play. If a player can get a shot off, then he has not been prevented from releasing the ball on a pass or try.

Under the rules,you HAVE to hold your whistle to see if the the player gets the shot off.How can you possibly call a held ball for a defensive player preventing the shooter from releasing the ball on a try,as per R4-25-2,when the shooter actually DOES release the ball? The bottom line is that if the defensive player did NOT prevent the shooter from releasing the ball on a try. Rule 4-25 therefore IS NOT applicable and you CAN'T use it as justification for calling a held ball.

Big Joe,you have nothing in the rules anywhere to justify your calling a held ball.You can't use Casebook play 4.25.2 either.That one isn't applicable because B1 actually prevented A1 from releasing a try in it. What you are trying to call a held ball is detailed in Casebook play 4.43.3SitA(b) as being legal and is not a held ball.



[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 19th, 2003 at 11:11 AM]

JR,
You have made it clear that if the shooter is able to release the ball before returning to the floor, you do not consider any action by the defense to have met the requirements of a held ball. Therefore, your timeline for deciding whether or not a held ball occurred lasts until the shooter returns to the floor. That is certainly a reasonable way of officiating this play.

But now, with that in mind, please consider this play: A1 jumps intending to shoot. At the apex of his jump he attempts to release the ball, but because B1 puts his hand on it at this time he is unable to do so. A1 then pulls the ball back down to his hip and before returning to the floor is able to release a pass to a nearby teammate.

In this play, it is clear that B1 prevented A1 from releasing a try, but A1 was able to eventually get off a pass before returning to the floor. Big Joe would call a held ball on this play according to 4-25-2. Would you do the same or let play continue? Does it matter to you that A1 passed the ball from his hip instead of shot it as in the previous play I provided?
Basically, I am wondering if the first attempt for a try is prevented at time X, do we allow the player a second attempt to release the ball on a try or a pass at time Y (provided he has not returned to the floor), or do we call a held ball immediately at time X?

In the play above,B1 did NOT prevent A1 from the act of shooting or passing while A1 was airborne.Because of that fact,Rule 4-25-2 CANNOT be applicable in that case.The language in Casebook play 4.43.3SitA(b) fully supports that-i.e. "since the touching did not prevent the pass or try...,the ball remains live and subsequent action is covered by rules which apply to the situation". That means that you got nothing to call on this play because A1 fulfilled one of the two requirements(pass or shot) and didn't come down with the ball.

Downtown
The lesson you might have learned is 2 fold.
1. If you have a disagreement with your partner, wait until after the game and both of you have had some time to unwind. In the heat of the game some officials take offense if you ask them about a call and can take it the wrong way.

2. About the jumb ball situation. I would say hold your whistle for a split second longer and let the play develop. If shooter gets ball off great, if not then I would call a jump ball. This is what I have been taught by veterns and at camp.

Hi Nevada. Does not 4.43.3 answer your question?

Unfortunately, it does not. I believe that 4.43.3A(b) is describing very different action. It is purely a problem of diction. Here's the best way I can explain it:
That Case Book play uses the words, "touches the ball." I understand this to be different from contacting the ball in a forceful manner such that it prevents the release of a pass or a try.
Merely touching the ball could be a very light tap or a brush of the ball after the shooter has left the floor, but is still on the way up. Placing a hand squarely on the ball and applying significant pressure at the apex of the jump is certainly different from this.

Officials must understand the language of 4.43.3A in the way that I have just outlined. Otherwise, there would be a real problem with part (c) because one would not know whether to call a held ball or a travel. Here are the exact words for both:

4.43.3A(c) A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and touches the ball and A1 returns to the floor holding the ball. Ruling: In (c), a traveling violation.

4-25-2 A held ball occurs when 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 for goal.

So if A1 with the ball jumps into the air and B1 then hits the ball with a hand after which A1 returns to the floor holding the ball, under the auspices of which rule does this play fall? Is it a held ball or a travel?

Do you now see how these rules would provide conflicting calls, if you considered the touch of the ball in 4.43.3A to be just the same as the contact with the ball that prevents the release in 4-25-2? It seems that an official must make the difficult judgment as to what contact prevents the release of a ball and what touch does not.
My point is therefore that officials cannot consider those same words "touches the ball," which are also used in part (b), to mean the same thing as the action which is being described in 4-25-2. I believe the rules committee had two totally different plays in mind when it wrote each of these.
Therefore, since one was not intended to provide a ruling on the other, and vice-versa, it would be incorrect to make the argument that we should be considering both rules when making a call on this play. One of them simply wasn't ever intended to apply to this particular play. I believe that one is 4.43.3A(b).
It is unfortunate for us that the English language can be so vague and imprecise, but we must deal with it. This happens to be one of those cases where the words chosen to describe a play in writing do not clearly convey a single image to minds of various officials. We simply see different things in our heads when we read these words, and since we are all not envisioning the same action on the court, this leads to substantial confusion.

Difficult judgement? Nope! Probably one of the easier calls to make. If an airborne player passes or shoots the ball,you CANNOT say that that player has been PREVENTED from passing or shooting the ball.You,therefore,can't call them for a held ball,by the rule that you quoted above.It's that simple,Nevada.

one or both....
 

JR,
You appear to have tunnel-vision when it comes to your reading of 4-25-2. How can I make it clear to you that the English language permits two very different readings of this rule?

The last part of that rule says "prevents an airborne player from throwing the ball or releasing it on a try."

It is not clear from a simple reading of these words whether the defender must succeed in preventing the airborne player from doing both of these actions or only one of them in order to get a held ball. We must think a bit to decide which understanding the NFHS trying to convey.

For example, if I were to bet you $100 that I could prevent you from combing your hair or brushing your teeth (assuming that you have either one :D), would stealing your comb be enough to win the bet or would I have to hide your toothbrush as well?

In my second play the defender does prevent the release of a try at the apex of the jump, and the player was clearly intending to shoot when he jumped, but then the airborne player is able to bring the ball back down to his hip and release a pass before returning to the floor. So the defender has succeeded in doing one of the two things stated in 4-25-2, but not both. Whether you understand this to be a held ball, by rule, depends upon how you understand that last phrase in the rule.
I believe that the NFHS expresses their understanding of that phrase to be that the defender must only do one of those two things when they tell us at what time to make the call. If they tell us to make the call right away, then they must want a held ball to result if the defender prevents either one, since otherwise they would tell us to wait and see if the airborne player is able to accomplish the other.
The proper time to make this call is made quite clear in this rule since it says that "A held ball occurs WHEN:" ....An opponent ... prevents...A or B.
That indicates that the held ball call should be made at the time that the try is prevented, not when the player returns to the floor. You have argued for holding the whistle until the latter happens. However, the rule does not say that the held ball occurs when the airborne player returns to the floor, does it? No, the rule and the case book specifically tell us otherwise, they say that the held ball results IMMEDIATELY even if the ball later comes loose. I must emphasize what is said and what is not said in the casebook play 4.25.2
In part (a) the airborne player returns to the floor with the ball. In part (b) the airborne player is unable to control the ball and it drops to the floor. In BOTH cases the ruling is "A held ball results immediately," not when the player returns to the floor, but "when airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball to pass or try for goal."
It can't be any clearer than that. The NFHS does not want us to hold the whistle.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 21st, 2003 at 06:08 AM]

Nevada,that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you.As soon as an airborne player is prevented from releasing the ball to pass or try for goal,you have a held ball.If you DON'T prevent them,you don't have a damn thing.It's not tunnel vision.It's the rule.You can write 1000-word essays from here to eternity and you can't change the meaning of the word "prevent".

I'm just quoting the same things to you over and over.Why don't you just forget about me and call it your way.Argument's over.Let us know how it turns out the first time that you call a held ball when an airborne player actually gets a shot off and scores,though.

Along these same lines.....
 

Tonight I was in the stands watching a VB game. I don't know about everybody else, but this is the only time that people ask my opinion. Kid started to take a shot from 15', defender came flying at him from in the paint jumped and got a hand on the ball and held it firmly. If both players had been simply standing flat footed, it certainly would have been a held ball. However, when the defender came down, he collided, torso to torso with the shooter, doing everything but knocking him to the floor. Official called a foul. I was sitting with the fans of the defensive team. A guy turned to me: "Jump ball! Wasn't that a jump ball?" I said no, that I agreed with the call, that when you jump up in the air and come down on top of somebody, it's pretty much gonna be a foul. He was satisfied, but I got to thinking, can a held ball be called while the defender is in midair, thus making this contact after the whistle irrelevant. The contact in this case was substantial, but certainly not intentional or flagrant. Is there a casebook play that deals specifically with this?

Airborne Defender...
 

Casebook play 11.11.1

An "airborne defender" may create a held ball situation, any activity thereafter must be ignored...unless judged intentional or flagrant by the official. ;)

Dude

Re: Airborne Defender...
 

The publishers musta played a cruel joke on me, cause my casebook doesn't go up to 11. anything.

Re: Along these same lines.....
 

Here's where oft-quoted Casebook play 4.25.2 does give you some guidance,I think.In (a),the shooter is prevented from releasing the ball and you have a held ball as soon as he returns to the floor.Any contact after that could be ignored,as you say,if it is not intentional or flagrant.Similarly,in (b),if the airborne player is prevented from passing or shooting and the ball then comes loose and hits the floor,you can call the held ball and ignore subsequent contact unless intentional or flagrant.I think that if you have the contact before A comes down or the ball comes loose though,that you probably gotta call the foul in this case.

ARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! This is so frustrating.
This is exactly what I have been trying to tell you for two full pages, JR.

You have a misunderstanding of when a held ball occurs in this case.

In the quote above you have incorrectly written that we "have a held ball as soon as he returns to the floor." To make it even more aggravating, you even quote casebook play 4.25.2, which says very clearly that the held ball results immediately when airborne A1 is prevented from releasing the ball, and then go on to make this contrary statement!
According to the casebook, not just me, this held ball occurs way before A1 returns to the floor. It is right there in black and white. You now have to concede that the held ball call should be immediate, as the case book says, and not when the player returns to the floor.

Just another ref,
I would call the play you described a held ball immediately when the try was prevented. I would not wait for the player to return to the floor as JR advocates, and therefore, the contact after the held ball would be ignored.

ARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! This is so frustrating.
This is exactly what I have been trying to tell you for two full pages, JR.

You have a misunderstanding of when a held ball occurs in this case.
[/B][/QUOTE]Nope,for two full pages,you've been trying to tell me that you can call a held ball even though an airborne shooter ISN'T prevented from passing or shooting the ball.That's completely wrong and you don't have any rule that will support that.Casebook play 4.25.2 isn't applicable in any way,shape or form unless the airborne shooter is actually prevented from releasing the ball to pass or try for goal.That's the exact wording from it. I don't misunderstand this rule at all.I know what the word "prevent" means and I also know how the rule should be called.As I said before,call it your way if you want.Should be interesting when you wipe out a game-winning basket that was shot before the player came down,and you call a jump ball instead because the player was prevented from shooting.

JR and NR-

Seems to me that your debate comes down to a simple disagreement about timing:

Per JR, a player is not prevented from releasing the ball if he is able to release BEFORE HE RETURNS TO THE GROUND.

Per NR, a player is prevented from releasing the ball AS SOON AS THE EFFORT TO RELEASE IS STOPPED AND THE BALL IS MOVED BACK FROM THE DEFENSIVE FORCE.

The rule itself does not answer the question, it just says prevent from releasing -- if anything, I think that favors NR's interpretation.

Case book plays that you've both discussed shed more light. The case NR cited says that if the ball comes loose before the offensive player comes down, it is still a jump. That means the rule CAN'T require the player to come down with the ball to have a jump.

What the rule requires, I submit, is a JUDGMENT by the official as to whether the defenders action PREVENTED AN ATTEMPTED RELEASE of the ball. The fact that the player managed to toss the ball a different direction AFTER THE FACT does not NECESSARILY mean that the defender did not PREVENT the release -- BUT it can (and perhaps should) affect your JUDGMENT as to whether the defender PREVENTED the release, or whether the offensive player DECIDED not to release the ball and do something else because it was going to be blocked.

Like any judgment call, seems to me that there is room for a difference of opinion on the judgment as to whether the release was prevented or not.

Clearly it's not clear
 

hawkk
You did a great job of summing things up. My take on the case was 180 degrees different than yours. That is, if NF wanted to say initial release prevented, then second release attempted and succeeded, results is held ball, they would have done so. I read the case as saying that dropping the ball after your release was initially stopped does not amount to a release as a pass or shot, so held ball still occurs.

I think that JR made a good point that his interpretation is the one that is taught at clinics. It doesn't make it right, because we know even experienced refs don't always have correct interpretations (and this discussion proves that point - one side or the other is wrong, and we have lots of experience speaking here). However, it has always seemed apparent to me that if you release a shot or pass, you were not prevented from releasing a shot or pass. If you drop the ball after your attempt was stopped, you were prevented from releasing a shot or pass - held ball, and that is the purpose of the case.

Unfortunately, we cannot resolve this difference because the case book is silent on the critical issue. Pick a way to call it and call it consistently.

Re: Re: Along these same lines.....
 

I couldn't be absolutely certain, but in the play that I saw I don't believe the shooter ever left the floor. It was my first thought, and apparently the guy calling the game agreed, that just because you go up and tie up the ball, this does not give you the right to come crashing down on a stationary opponent. Often you see a player hold the ball overhead and a defender grabs it from behind. The offensive player pulls the ball down, thus pulling the defender down with it. Held ball is called, and the fans scream "Over the back!" But in this case, assuming the shooter is stationary, the defenders own action caused him to come down on the opponent, so I think that you call a foul.

Re: Clearly it's not clear
 

I can see your view, too . . . one could start drawing parallels to the player who is fouled while trying to shoot one kind of shot and eventually gets off some other shot -- at what point is it still the same shot that counts if it goes, and when did the first shot end so that it is an irrelevant dead ball shot? I think the way THAT play is actually called would seem to support the view that you and JR take.