In this scenario, yes. It was men's rec so there weren't bodies diving all over, the player was all alone on the ground with the ball pinned, if he looked at me and asked for timeout I would've granted. Great way to look at it, looks like that means it was a correct whistle.

And I assume (yeah, I know) that you'd then call travelling (and grant TO if it was requested) in the OP?

So, you think "pinning" = control? You're daring to go against the consensus of the forum? ;)

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying I should've called traveling?

The ball was already on the ground as a loose ball when the player dove on it and pinned it to the ground with one hand. I'd have to assume (there's that dirty word again) if he were to roll the hand would come off the ball and therefore relinquish control.

In the scenario I had nobody else really hit the floor for it or was making any legitimate attempts at the ball, I think that weighed into my opinion of him having the ball under his control and saying I would grant the timeout (right or wrong?). If he had the ball pinned to the floor with one hand but 3 other guys are flying in trying to pull it out, I would not grant a timeout. Does this line of thinking making sense?

The travelling question was in relation to the OP, posted by BNR -- A1 pins the ball, then stands. Your play had no travelling considerations.



It seems to me that it's either control, or it's not control (and, thus, To or no TO). It shouldn't matter whether "3 other guys are flying in trying to pull it out"

Maybe a better way to phrase my thinking is this...

If A1 is standing there holding the ball, and B1 is trying to rip it out, I will grant A1 a requested timeout. He is holding the ball in his posession, and it is clear to me he has control.

If A1 is down on one knee, laying on the floor etc., and has one hand pinned on top of the ball, nobody within 3 feet of him and looks at me and requests a timeout, I would grant. (For example, on a routine no press backcourt inbound pass a PG trips before recieving, crawls across the floor and pins the rolling ball before it gets out of bounds) It is clear, IMO he controls that ball.

If A1 is on the ground with a hand pinning the ball to the floor, but B1 also has hands in there trying to grab the ball, I cannot definitivley say who has posession because it is not cut and dry like in example 1, where A1 is holding. Therefore, I would not grant a timeout.

Does this make sense to take into account the other variables when determining player control?

I honestly think you're overthinking it. He's either holding it or he's not. I don't think he is.

Would you count 5 seconds if there was a defender within 6 feet (in the FC)?

If you deem he has control enough to grant a time-out, then you can't allow him to rise to his feet, that would be a travelling violation.

If he pins it down tightly and an opponent grasps it also do you have a held ball?

Yes, but I don't think it helps in the plays in this thread.


Control (by either team) is not required for a held ball.

Seems to me someone's trying very hard to have his cake and eat it too. This is very simple - he has control ... or he doesn't. If he has control ... he can call time out - but he can't get up. If he doesn't have control, he cannot call time out (don't care who's near him) but he can get up.

You can't have a ruling where he can get up AND he can call time out. You have to choose here.

Sorry, wasn't trying to hijack the thread. I was just asking for my own benefit. I was glad to hear your answer as I would call held ball.