|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
So, you think "pinning" = control? You're daring to go against the consensus of the forum? |
|
|||
Quote:
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? |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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? |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
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.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Free Violation and Lane Violation Situation | habram | Basketball | 3 | Tue Dec 10, 2013 06:23pm |
No violation? | red | Basketball | 4 | Tue Feb 17, 2009 01:01am |
Backcourt violation - 3 second violation | Shades of Gray | Basketball | 15 | Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:38pm |
Throw-in violation or OOB violation? | Nevadaref | Basketball | 47 | Fri Nov 02, 2007 07:15pm |
Clever? or a violation ,trying 2 avoid a violation | hardwdref | Basketball | 3 | Sat Nov 13, 2004 04:17pm |