Possession of Ball to Travel?

[bd41flpk]

Question: A1 has the ball secured between his legs. Is this considered possession for the purposes of:

1) Ability to call time-out?

2) Fall down and be called for a travel?

Responses and rule references for that constitutes possession are appreciated.

[JetMetFan]

Well, according to NFHS 9-4 a player shall not intentionally kick the ball.

According to NFHS 4-29, kicking is intentionally striking the ball with any part of the leg or foot.

If a player attempts to control the ball with his/her leg or foot that would seem to be an intentional act, so...

Travel = no. Kicked ball = yes. That pretty much renders the time out & control portions of the question moot.

[bob jenkins]

I think there's even a case on this -- or maybe the case is only NCAAW.

[bd41flpk]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Well, according to NFHS 9-4 a player shall not intentionally kick the ball.

According to NFHS 4-29, kicking is intentionally striking the ball with any part of the leg or foot.

If a player attempts to control the ball with his/her leg or foot that would seem to be an intentional act, so...

Travel = no. Kicked ball = yes. That pretty much renders the time out & control portions of the question moot.

Not sure if this can actually be considered a 'kicking' violation? Of course the scenario of how this occurred could explain it. I am thinking its basically a 'type' of a fumble and the ball is lodged between the players' leg.

IMHO....no possession so no travel / and no ability to call T.O. !

Hope someone else can find a case instance for this.

Thanks for the comments....

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by bd41flpk

Not sure if this can actually be considered a 'kicking' violation?

As was pointed out earlier, the rules would tell you otherwise.

[johnny d]

Kicking the Ball
A.R. 196. A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part
of the legs. B1 attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing two hands
firmly on the ball; however, A1 applies vice-like force with the upper legs,
which prevents B1 from gaining possession of the ball.
RULING: A1 has committed a kicking violation. Kicking the ball is
defined as striking the ball intentionally with any part of the leg. The
intent of this rule is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage
by using any part of the leg. Since A1 was not holding the ball in his
hands, B1’s firm placement of his hands on the ball does not constitute
a held ball.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think there's even a case on this -- or maybe the case is only NCAAW.

It's in NCAAW. Scenario is different but the logic behind the ruling is explained.

A.R. 196. A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part of the legs. B1 attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing two hands firmly on the ball; however, A1 applies vice-like force with the upper legs, which prevents B1 from gaining possession of the ball.

RULING: A1 has committed a kicking violation. Kicking the ball is defined as striking the ball intentionally with any part of the leg. The intent of this rule is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage by using any part of the leg. Since A1 was not holding the ball in her hands, B1’s firm placement of her hands on the ball does not constitute a held ball. (Rule 9-7.2)

The OP in this thread has A1 standing - at least in scenario #2. If A1 is standing there’s a better than average chance (s)he is applying force to keep the ball where it is.

[bd41flpk]

Thanks Gents for all of the rule and case book references. As usual the cooperation here is quite huge - much appreciated !

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays !

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It's in NCAAW. Scenario is different but the logic behind the ruling is explained.

It is the same in NCAA-M. I posted the same case book play above and it came from men's side.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by johnny d

It is the same in NCAA-M. I posted the same case book play above and it came from men's side.

The NFHS has no such case play, ruling or interp that I know of.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Well, according to NFHS 9-4 a player shall not intentionally kick the ball.

According to NFHS 4-29, kicking is intentionally striking the ball with any part of the leg or foot.

If a player attempts to control the ball with his/her leg or foot that would seem to be an intentional act, so...

Travel = no. Kicked ball = yes. That pretty much renders the time out & control portions of the question moot.

Securing the ball and striking it seem, to me, to be opposites.

If the ball went from no control to being between legs, I've still got no control.

If the ball was controlled, and a player put the ball between his legs (and was not being defended) so he could free his hands to call time out, I'm thinking we should not pick nits and give him the time out.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Securing the ball and striking it seem, to me, to be opposites.

If the ball went from no control to being between legs, I've still got no control.

If the ball was controlled, and a player put the ball between his legs (and was not being defended) so he could free his hands to call time out, I'm thinking we should not pick nits and give him the time out.

Then there’s this: one non-basketball definition of “strike” = come into contact forcefully. To hold a ball between his/her legs – especially when standing – a player would have to apply some level of force.

Also, there’s the first line in the NFHS definition of player control (4-12-1): A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball. Holding implies using one’s hands or arms. You really can’t “hold” something with your legs or feet.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

You really can’t “hold” something with your legs or feet.

Try telling that to a rock climber. Just don't tell him while he's in the middle of a climb.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Then there’s this: one non-basketball definition of “strike” = come into contact forcefully. To hold a ball between his/her legs – especially when standing – a player would have to apply some level of force.

Also, there’s the first line in the NFHS definition of player control (4-12-1): A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball. Holding implies using one’s hands or arms. You really can’t “hold” something with your legs or feet.

If we're talking generic terms and not basketball terms, I see no reason why you couldn't hold something with legs or feet any more than you could with hands or arms. Elbows and knees are kind of equivalent here.

Not insisting I'm right here at all. Just saying this version of trying to talk me out of it didn't work.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

If we're talking generic terms and not basketball terms, I see no reason why you couldn't hold something with legs or feet any more than you could with hands or arms. Elbows and knees are kind of equivalent here.

Not insisting I'm right here at all. Just saying this version of trying to talk me out of it didn't work.

I agree with you.

The ball is meant to be played with the hands. The deliberate use of the legs/feet to hold, deflect, manipulate, etc. the ball is not consistent with the game. Even if there isn't anything spelled out in the rules about it, I think it is pretty say to say that it is not legal to grip the ball between your feet/legs.