Time out, no possession

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The general understanding is that any intentional contact with the ball, using one's legs, is considered a "kick." Such contact is often seen as a "non-basketball action."
Recently, a player, sitting on the floor, put his leg on top of the ball, to control it, when he saw that an opponent was about to grab the ball. I called the violation, to the great disapproval of many of the fans, who voiced their opinion that, "That wasn't a kick!" . . . Smile, throw-in for the other team. Game continues.

Nicely done!

[MD Longhorn]

Interesting. Post a situation. Don't like the response. Change the situation. Hmmmm.

Did he or did he not contact the ball intentionally with his legs. If yes - kicked ball. If no, then how did he have the ball "collected" without having it in his hands?

Yes, you erred... we just don't know which way yet.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Interesting. Post a situation. Don't like the response. Change the situation. Hmmmm.

It's essential not to read too much into what someone says and just read their words. The OP never changed the scenario. You (and others) just read it wrong. The OP never said the ball was being controlled by, or touched by, the player's legs.

the ball winds up between his legs with neither of his hands on the ball.

"Winds up" sounds like the ball must have bounced there and come to a rest, without any action by the player's legs.

Then he went on to clarify the same point, and still people are misunderstanding.

I have no kicking violation on this play.

But, no timeout should have been granted either, as the player did not have possession of the ball. The ball resting between the player's legs does not constitute player control, any more than a ball sitting next to a player on the floor does.

No timeout. No kicking violation.

[OKREF]

I can understand why the timeout was granted. Wanting to shut down the play before something crazy happened. Not saying it was right by the book, just saying I understand.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I can understand why the timeout was granted. Wanting to shut down the play before something crazy happened. Not saying it was right by the book, just saying I understand.

Forget by the book. It's not right, PERIOD.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Rich

Forget by the book. It's not right, PERIOD.

Exactly. No TO should be granted here.

I'm with fiasco about the kicked ball too. If we take the OP at face value, I'm just letting this play out until he does something with his legs that help him gain control of the ball. Simply sitting there with your legs in front of you with the ball between them isn't enough for me for a violation, but YMMV.

[letemplay]

The OP seems to be saying he quickly called a TO before something "ugly" would happen next?? I dunno about most, but if I'm sitting upright and the ball is between my legs, unless someone is holding my arms back, I feel like within a gnats eyelash I'm going to be putting my hands on the ball. Perhaps the player felt the need to use a hand signal for the TO, not sure. I'd like to let the play go just a few more seconds at least...jmtcw

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It's essential not to read too much into what someone says and just read their words. The OP never changed the scenario. You (and others) just read it wrong. The OP never said the ball was being controlled by, or touched by, the player's legs.

Right, but he says the ball was between his legs, and says the ball was "collected". That's where things changed. First it was collected. Then it was not in contact with anything at all.

If it was not touching anything, I'm COMPLETELY flummoxed by the time out call. Who would ever think to call a time out when the player in question was not even in contact with the ball, and was simply near it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It's essential not to read too much into what someone says and just read their words. The OP never changed the scenario. You (and others) just read it wrong. The OP never said the ball was being controlled by, or touched by, the player's legs.



"Winds up" sounds like the ball must have bounced there and come to a rest, without any action by the player's legs.

Then he went on to clarify the same point, and still people are misunderstanding.

I have no kicking violation on this play.

But, no timeout should have been granted either, as the player did not have possession of the ball. The ball resting between the player's legs does not constitute player control, any more than a ball sitting next to a player on the floor does.

No timeout. No kicking violation.

Of course I don't what he edited from his original post but it is very clear why people would think A1 did something illegal:

Originally Posted by Chris Whitten

Middle school game between two historically heated rivals. Two opposing players on the floor after a loose ball. A1 is sitting upright with his legs in a "V" and the ball winds up between his legs with neither of his hands on the ball. He verbally requests time-out and I grant it. My "flash reasoning" is he has the ball "collected" AND, the next thing to happen will be really ugly. Did Yours Truly err? Would you have granted the TO request?

Between does not mean below.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Interesting. Post a situation. Don't like the response. Change the situation. Hmmmm.

Did he or did he not contact the ball intentionally with his legs. If yes - kicked ball. If no, then how did he have the ball "collected" without having it in his hands?

Yes, you erred... we just don't know which way yet.

FWIW, I did NOT read the OP as intentional contact with the legs....not a violation. The question was simply about blowing the whistle for a timeout when the player wasn't holding the ball.