Jump ball held ball plus injury.

[VaTerp]

Honestly have to say this is a question I have never thought of before.

In the NBA, which I'm assuming the OP is referencing when he talks about a held ball situation, I would think the substitute would have to jump since it has to be the two players who were involved.

If we are talking NFHS or NCAA I don't know why we wouldn't let the coach put in a sub and have whoever he wanted be the new jumper.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

If we are talking NFHS or NCAA I don't know why we wouldn't let the coach put in a sub and have whoever he wanted be the new jumper.

Absent the injury, in NFHS the two players involved have to jump. That's why I'd have the sub jump.

Absent the injury in NCAAW, any two players can jump. So, any two players can jump after the injury.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Absent the injury, in NFHS the two players involved have to jump. That's why I'd have the sub jump.

Absent the injury in NCAAW, any two players can jump. So, any two players can jump after the injury.

Agreed. In NFHS, the rule doesn't address the situation, but there is precedent to determine their intent. That precedent is with free throws, and it's clear they want the sub to shoot. I'm going that route and having the sub jump.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Absent the injury, in NFHS the two players involved have to jump. That's why I'd have the sub jump.

That make sense.

Originally Posted by Adam

Agreed. In NFHS, the rule doesn't address the situation, but there is precedent to determine their intent. That precedent is with free throws, and it's clear they want the sub to shoot. I'm going that route and having the sub jump.

I disagree that substitutes for an injured free throw shooter is precedent here. I can agree with what Bob is saying in that absent the injury, NFHS would require the two original jumpers to jump again.

I don't think the FT situation is analogous.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

That make sense.



I disagree that substitutes for an injured free throw shooter is precedent here. I can agree with what Bob is saying in that absent the injury, NFHS would require the two original jumpers to jump again.
I don't think the FT situation is analogous.

I do not know NCAAW, but for NFHS the 2 involved in the held ball situation will be the new jumpers. So if one of them is injured I would say the substitute would be the jumper.

[Sharpshooternes]

This specific play I am looking for the HS ruling. So far we just have opinions but no rules backing. Anyone care to venture?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

This specific play I am looking for the HS ruling. So far we just have opinions but no rules backing. Anyone care to venture?

There is no coverage for this (that any of us are aware of -- and I did look in the Rules By Topic, which includes Case Plays), so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

I'd make the sub jump.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

That make sense.



I disagree that substitutes for an injured free throw shooter is precedent here. I can agree with what Bob is saying in that absent the injury, NFHS would require the two original jumpers to jump again.

I don't think the FT situation is analogous.

It's the closest thing we have to insight into the NFSH intent. The only other thing in the game where a specific player is required to do something is shooting free throws, so I'd follow that concept. Just my thought process: no one is obliged to follow it.

That said, you can go with 2-3 if you want. Honestly, since it's not covered by rule, I'd have a hard time telling anyone their wrong if they came to the other conclusion (allowing anyone to jump). Most of us won't have more than a handful of held balls on the opening tip anyway; the odds of one of those 5 situations involving an injury are infinitely small.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I can agree with what Bob is saying in that absent the injury, NFHS would require the two original jumpers to jump again.

'Tis the season for skating on thin ice . . .
7-3-2.
Though I'd never want to be construed as speaking for Bob who is right.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's the closest thing we have to insight into the NFSH intent. The only other thing in the game where a specific player is required to do something is shooting free throws, so I'd follow that concept. Just my thought process: no one is obliged to follow it.

That said, you can go with 2-3 if you want. Honestly, since it's not covered by rule, I'd have a hard time telling anyone their wrong if they came to the other conclusion (allowing anyone to jump). Most of us won't have more than a handful of held balls on the opening tip anyway; the odds of one of those 5 situations involving an injury are infinitely small.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Freddy

'Tis the season for skating on thin ice . . .
7-3-2.
Though I'd never want to be construed as speaking for Bob who is right.

Good call on 7-3-2. Knew there was a scenario for a jump not involving a retoss of opening tip but didnt remember exactly and don't have my books.

Now I know this given the .001 chance it happens in a game any time soon.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Fair enough.



Good call on 7-3-2. Knew there was a scenario for a jump not involving a retoss of opening tip but didnt remember exactly and don't have my books.

Now I know this given the .001 chance it happens in a game any time soon.

I've had it happen in the last two years or so. Opening tap never controlled and two players tie it up without team control being established -- it's not *that* rare of a situation.