Violation: yes or no?
 

A1 is dribbling on the move. A1 slips, and as he is falling pushes the ball to the floor and pins it there. While keeping the ball pinned to the floor with his left hand he gets up. After getting back up on 2 feet, A1 picks the ball up. At no point after falling to the ground did A1 ever take his left hand off the ball.

One hand pinning the ball to the floor is not control. I have nothing.

I remember this type of play (or at least tangential) being discussed after Rajon Rando made a play 2-3 years ago in the playoffs involving him pinning the ball to the ground..

Edit:

Here's the discussion:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...g-its-nbe.html

And here's the play in question from the thread above
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/36POeMbo3Yk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I second that nothing.Loose ball secured and player goes with it.

How long would you allow A1 to pin the ball to the floor from an inbound pass in the backcourt before you start your ten second count?

I can see where you would argue that one hand pinning the ball to the floor isn't "holding the ball" and therefore not control. However, I certainly see it as controlling the ball.

As long as it takes for him to control it with two hands.

If he's not holding it or dribbling it, he's not controlling it by rule.

I'd start the ten count immediately. A still has team control in the backcourt (established when handed the ball for the throw in).

At the NCAA level, immediately. :D

The OP happened in a D3 game I worked Saturday. I was trail in front of the defensive team's HC and A1 had just left my primary, but I still saw what happened. Coach yelled out for a travel right away, and I told him that A1 didn't have the ball in his hand when he got up.

At halftime the on-ball official felt he messed up by not calling a travel.

But in HS the count doesn't begin until a player has controlled the ball inbounds. (If A2 touches the ball on the throw-in pass and it bounds away for 10 seconds, it's not a violation.)

The player was dribbling, so he already had player control.

Now whether one considers the pin to be part of continuing the dribble, holding the ball, or no control at all would matter to making the decision.

Remember that per an NFHS Case Play a player on the floor in control of the ball may not relinquish control by putting the ball on the floor next to him, get up, and then repossess the ball.

A. A continued dribble clearly is not a travel as one of the fundamentals is that a player may not travel while dribbling.

B. Deeming it holding the ball means not only that getting up is a travel, but that falling to the floor while holding it was already a travel.

C. Control when down, then loss of control, then regain after rising is a travel based upon the Case Play. The only gray area is in judging if the player lost control BEFORE going to the floor. That would make the action legal.

Part C is clearly the most confusing. I would go with B, and contend that this constitutes holding the ball in one hand. To me the dribble ended when the ball came to rest. The rule doesn't state any specific hand position is necessary to cause that.

Can you give me a case play or rule citation to back up this assertion? All I've got is 9-8, which says :

"A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds."

That would suggest that the play you described is indeed a violation.

Only after PC has been established inbounds. 9-8 would apply if Team A had the ball in the front court and a pass was deflected into the back court. You would start your count immediately in that case.

I can't find anything in the book to back this up. Can someone help me out?

It is a good question. I asked the same question here about 5-6 years ago.

You could refer to these:
2011-12 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her backcourt. The administering official reaches a four-second count when A1 passes the ball onto the court. A1’s pass to A2, who is also in Team A’s backcourt, takes several bounces and six seconds before A2 picks up and controls the ball. RULING: Legal. Even though a team is now in control during a throw-in, the 10-second rule specifically requires that a player/team be in continuous control in its backcourt for 10 seconds for a violation to occur. Technically speaking, the thrower-in is out of bounds and not located in the backcourt. (4-35-2; 9-8)

SITUATION 5: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2d; 9-9)

These interpretations actually do not address the question at hand. In situation 3, the interpretation says there is no 10 second count because 4 of those seconds were during the throw-in which doesn't count towards the 10. That's already covered in the rule book. It doesn't actually state whether the ten second count should start when the player gains control or when the ball strikes the floor in the backcourt.

The second interpretation applies to backcourt violations, and it does change the rule "as stated" in the book (the book says for backcourt that only team control is necessary in the front court, this interpretation says otherwise). However it doesn't do anything to help us when deciding to begin counting ten seconds.

Read number 5 again -- especially the last sentence:

The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt.

Situation 4 makes the same point.

Got it. Thanks.

Is this point only available through prior years interpretations?

It's one of the complications with the way they added to the team control definition.

My opinion is that it would be nice if a more clearly defined criteria for when a 10-second count starts was put in words in the rule book.

When the rule was written, there was no team control during a throw-in at the HS level, so the "continuously in team control" phrase made sense. Now it's convoluted with the addition of TC fouls on throw-ins.

They've tried to do this by interpretation. The problem is, interps fade over time. I'm already talking to veteran officials, association leadership, who are insisting that, by rule, the throwin that is tipped by A in the FC and recovered by A in the BC is a violation.

westneat is correct in that the rule itself has this as a violation: but the NFHS was clear when they added TC to the throw in that they did not want it to apply to anything except whether you shoot FTs on a given foul.

The need to change the TC rule back, and then simply change the penalties to state that a foul committed by the throw in team does not result in FTs. Maybe include that in the definition of a TC foul, even though there's no TC. This wouldn't be any different than a PC foul that can be charged even when there's no PC. I believe this was Bob's suggestion.

Agree 100%. In fact, I've lobbied the current and previous Rules Committee members from my region to do exactly that. It's gotten nowhere. (What makes it worse is that the current committee member is an official.)

They've already (kind of, almost) done this. They included the inbounder in the definition of team control foul (4-19-7). The rule could be made a little clearer, and then just eliminate team control during the throw-in. I wish they would do this and eliminate all this confusion and contradiction.

Worse, unless it's in the book, how can I justify a call that looks like it directly contradicts the rulebook?

You won't have to -- at least for a while.

This is one of the (rare) times when "what everyone knows" is correct.

Note that the NCAA rule is a little different -- the shot-clock starts when the ball is touched and when it gets to 20/25, it's a violation -- even if there was never PC in the BC. (generic statement only, for the usual situation; I recognize there are exceptions.) So, once people get used to that, then you might have some explaining to do, if FED doesn't clarify.

Unfortunately, the great majority of HS officials that I see, start the 10 second count upon the first touching of the ball, rather than control.

Who would've thought I'd see it so soon...
 

Did some men's "wreck" last night to try and make up a few dollars since my last FIVE HS games were cancelled. Had a play where white got a rebound and then lost the ball in transition still in the backcourt. A player from Red dove on the ground and had one hand firmly pinning the the ball to the ground near the mid-court line, but clearly in Red's frontcourt. He then put his other hand on the ground to push himself up, but put it down in the backcourt. I blew for a backcourt violation and then thought about this thread instantly and wondered if maybe I jumped the gun because it seemed to me the consensus here was that one hand pinning the ball to the ground is not control.

I don't recall seeing anything "official" about whether pinning the ball to the ground was control. I suppose it depends on how you define "holding".

As the poster formerly known as Snaqwells would say, would you grant a time-out in this situation?

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.