Two Questions

[We R Final Four]

1. I have never seen a jump ball where one player has both his hands on the ball (Jop) and the other has his feet/knees (Richmond)….neither hand to cause the tie up. How can you call a jump ball it that situation? Seems to me Driscoll called the hump ball more as a preventative safety measure.

2. This is for the numbers guys……it appears we allow (seemingly once per game) a basket  on the oppositions inbound play, under their basket. Jop is usually the culprit, but it has happened to Chase several times as well.
Compared to other teams how do we rank?
I know, Chase was able to get a layup on our own inbounds and Kam often gets that stepback 3 opportunity…..but question is our defense of others inbounds. Thanks.

[Dr. Blackheart]

1. I have never seen a jump ball where one player has both his hands on the ball (Jop) and the other has his feet/knees (Richmond)….neither hand to cause the tie up. How can you call a jump ball it that situation? Seems to me Driscoll called the hump ball more as a preventative safety measure.

Doggystyle, hey?

[Nukem2]

With a quick google search, it says you can’t secure the ball with any part of your legs. fwiw

[tower912]

I think that was an expedient call to avoid escalation of hostilities.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

1. I have never seen a jump ball where one player has both his hands on the ball (Jop) and the other has his feet/knees (Richmond)….neither hand to cause the tie up. How can you call a jump ball it that situation? Seems to me Driscoll called the hump ball more as a preventative safety measure.

The rulebook states:

A held ball occurs when an opponent places their hand(s):

a. So firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness; or

b. On the ball to prevent an airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try, and both players return to the playing court with both hands on the ball or the airborne player returns to the playing court never losing control of the ball.

So (b) is not relevant here. But (a) only mentions the "opponents hands" but says nothing about the hands of the team with possession - which was Seton Hall.

I think it just comes down to...what else do you call?

[Scoop Snoop]

I think that was an expedient call to avoid escalation of hostilities.

Between Holloway and Shaka?

[rocket surgeon]

Doggystyle, hey?

  maybe before it got to this...now back to the advice on babies thread

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I wish they would go back to a jump ball (at least for specific situations).  There is nothing worse than seeing a great defensive play that leads to a tie-up and the other team gets to keep the ball back because of an alternating possession arrow.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

What they should do is the old pick-up rule. Held ball goes to the defense.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

What they should do is the old pick-up rule. Held ball goes to the defense.

That would work.

[brewcity77]

Seems to me Driscoll called the hump ball more as a preventative safety measure.

Phenomenal description of that play, whether intentional or not.

[We R Final Four]

Phenomenal description of that play, whether intentional or not.

Haha—that was not intentional.

[romey]

The rulebook states:

A held ball occurs when an opponent places their hand(s):

a. So firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness; or

b. On the ball to prevent an airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try, and both players return to the playing court with both hands on the ball or the airborne player returns to the playing court never losing control of the ball.

So (b) is not relevant here. But (a) only mentions the "opponents hands" but says nothing about the hands of the team with possession - which was Seton Hall.

I think it just comes down to...what else do you call?

I'm not saying it was the case yesterday, but what ever happened to the travel call when an offensive player is on the floor with no "pivot foot"?

[#UnleashSean]

I wish they would go back to a jump ball (at least for specific situations).  There is nothing worse than seeing a great defensive play that leads to a tie-up and the other team gets to keep the ball back because of an alternating possession arrow.

This would just allow tall players to continue to hold the ball anytime a small player is guarding them.

[#UnleashSean]

I'm not saying it was the case yesterday, but what ever happened to the travel call when an offensive player is on the floor with no "pivot foot"?

I'm not sure, maybe they took it out? I see a ton of players now Slip to the floor with the ball with no travel call.

[Jay Bee]

The rulebook states:

A held ball occurs when an opponent places their hand(s):

a. So firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness; or

b. On the ball to prevent an airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try, and both players return to the playing court with both hands on the ball or the airborne player returns to the playing court never losing control of the ball.

So (b) is not relevant here. But (a) only mentions the "opponents hands" but says nothing about the hands of the team with possession - which was Seton Hall.

I think it just comes down to...what else do you call?

No. This is wrong. The call wasn’t a “held ball”. You’re citing irrelevant language.

The call was jump ball, aka calling an alternating-possession situation.

This is covered in Article 1 of the section you quoted, not Article 2. The call fits in with “f. The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control…”

I think the call was fine. It wasn’t called a held ball. Just like when a shooter wedges a shot into the rim/backboard.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

No. This is wrong. The call wasn’t a “held ball”. You’re citing irrelevant language.

The call was jump ball, aka calling an alternating-possession situation.

This is covered in Article 1 of the section you quoted, not Article 2. The call fits in with “f. The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control…”

I think the call was fine. It wasn’t called a held ball. Just like when a shooter wedges a shot into the rim/backboard.

Thank you for the correction. In that case it makes much more sense.

[MU90620]

I thought it should have been a kick. I know rules change and I haven’t checked in a while but a kick used to brr we defined as any intentional contact of the ball with the lower part if your body. The ball didn’t have to be loose to have a kick ball situation. If the rule hasn’t changed, I believe a kick was the proper call.

[Jay Bee]

I thought it should have been a kick. I know rules change and I haven’t checked in a while but a kick used to brr we defined as any intentional contact of the ball with the lower part if your body. The ball didn’t have to be loose to have a kick ball situation. If the rule hasn’t changed, I believe a kick was the proper call.

Not “contact”. Section 6 Art. 2 - “STRIKING it intentionally”

There was clearly contact, but I didn’t see the player striking it. So, no kick call appears appropriate.

[Dr. Blackheart]

No. This is wrong. The call wasn’t a “held ball”. You’re citing irrelevant language.

The call was jump ball, aka calling an alternating-possession situation.

This is covered in Article 1 of the section you quoted, not Article 2. The call fits in with “f. The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control…”

I think the call was fine. It wasn’t called a held ball. Just like when a shooter wedges a shot into the rim/backboard.

Weird call but this was obviously the situation called. Also no different than the Dence game when they called held ball on two blocked shots within two minutes of each other.

Btw, if two hands are required, is Hansel at a disadvantage?

[tower912]

Btw, if two hands are required, is Hansel at a disadvantage?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhc6CRgwkqg

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No. This is wrong. The call wasn’t a “held ball”. You’re citing irrelevant language.

The call was jump ball, aka calling an alternating-possession situation.

This is covered in Article 1 of the section you quoted, not Article 2. The call fits in with “f. The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control…”

I think the call was fine. It wasn’t called a held ball. Just like when a shooter wedges a shot into the rim/backboard.

This answers the question of why the ball alternated possession. It does not answer the question of why the ref whistled the ball dead. That is covered in Section 5 of Rule 6 (you are in section 4 of rule 6). Looking there, there doesn't seem to be obvious language that shows why the ball was whistled dead in that situation unless there was a floor violation (not seeing an obvious floor violation that could have been called there). The only connection I can make is the language in Rule 6, Section 5 says "An official blows the whistle". It does not say "blows the whistle for foul or violation" which seems to suggest that a ref can blow the whistle in situations that aren't violations or fouls and that makes the play dead which would trigger the alternate possession situation detailed by Jay Bee.

Honestly, I think it was the right call. It was a situation that if the refs allowed them to play through, could have easily resulted in someone getting kicked the face or hurt. Best thing to do in a pile up like that is whistle it dead and let the possession arrow decide it.

[MU90620]

Not “contact”. Section 6 Art. 2 - “STRIKING it intentionally”

There was clearly contact, but I didn’t see the player striking it. So, no kick call appears appropriate.

Thank you for the rule definition. That helps clarify. In my personal opinion, I would still view it as a strike because he appeared to be reaching back with his leg and trying to gather it. Which isn’t a hard strike, but a strike nonetheless.  But that is open to interpretation and could easily be viewed another way.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I wonder if Picaroon Scoop is questioning the nuances of the backcourt rule?

[#UnleashSean]

I thought it should have been a kick. I know rules change and I haven’t checked in a while but a kick used to brr we defined as any intentional contact of the ball with the lower part if your body. The ball didn’t have to be loose to have a kick ball situation. If the rule hasn’t changed, I believe a kick was the proper call.

A kicked ball has to be deemed intentionally kicked by the refs.

Ie, me throwing a ball off your foot does not make it a kicked ball.