Reaching out of your area

[ilyazhito]

That contact was not incidental to an attempt to play the ball. It was illegal contact to a shooter's arm, obviously below the wrist.

If the defender was vertical and just happened to make contact with the shooter's hand/arm, I would have let it go, but the defender struck the shooter on the arm without striking the ball. The rule of thumb is contact to ball + body = play on, but contact to body + ball = foul. In this case, there was contact to body without contact to the ball, and the contact was illegal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That contact was not incidental to an attempt to play the ball. It was illegal contact to a shooter's arm, obviously below the wrist.

Let's see, the part of the arm below the wrist? Let's call it the hand.

4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball
controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it
and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with
the ball.

Potato, potahto.
Tomato, tomahto.
Illegal, legal.

All the same.

Right?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's see, the part of the arm below the wrist? Let's call it the hand.

4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball
controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it
and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with
the ball.

Potato, potahto.
Tomato, tomahto.
Illegal, legal.

All the same.

Right?

Fred and Ginger are still waiting for a reply?

While we wait, sit back and enjoy some classic Fred and Ginger. Isn't Ginger pretty?

https://youtu.be/qRrw2hDjnl4

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That contact was not incidental to an attempt to play the ball. It was illegal contact to a shooter's arm, obviously below the wrist.

....

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's see, the part of the arm below the wrist? Let's call it the hand.

4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball
controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it
and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with
the ball.

Potato, potahto.
Tomato, tomahto.
Illegal, legal.

All the same.

Right?

Ummm, on most shots, the hand is at the apex of the arm, making it ABOVE the wrist. If our young poster was referring to the hand, I'm pretty sure he would have said the hand. Must we make everything into an unnecessary debate followed by you quoting yourself to further a conversation point that no one other than is confused by?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... on most shots, the hand is at the apex of the arm, making it above the wrist. If our young poster was referring to the hand, I'm pretty sure he would have said the hand ... no one ... is confused ...

Agree, on a shot the hand is above the wrist. Good point.

But, ilyazhito did say the hand.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... illegal use of hands, for hitting the shooter on the hand ...

I believe that ilyazhito may be confused, and may require a different interpretation than the one he has been using.

If the contact was on the arm, as he later stated, then my post is irrelevant.

He also mentioned the defender not striking the ball. One can legally strike the hand in contact with the ball and not ever contact the ball.

I'm sure that he'll be moseying along shortly to clarify his apparent confusion.

[LRZ]

For all the crap he sometimes gets here, let's cut ilyazhito some slack, as he did say "the defender struck the shooter on the arm" and "Red 3 hit the White player on his arm" and "It was illegal contact to a shooter's arm."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

For all the crap he sometimes gets here, let's cut ilyazhito some slack, as he did say "the defender struck the shooter on the arm" and "Red 3 hit the White player on his arm" and "It was illegal contact to a shooter's arm."

Some quotes are for different plays, same game.

My original criticism could have easily been handled by, "I meant to say arm, not hand". End of story. But it's not too late, it can still have a happy ending.

The purpose of my comment was to clarify for all that (in layman's terms) the hand is considered to be a part of the ball.

It is legal use of hands to accidentally hit the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler, or a shooter, on that player's hand (in contact with the ball) that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Some quotes are for different plays, same game.

My original criticism could have easily been handled by, "I meant to say arm, not hand". End of story. But it's not too late, it can still have a happy ending.

The purpose of my comment was to clarify for all that (in layman's terms) the hand is considered to be a part of the ball.

It is legal use of hands to accidentally hit the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler, or a shooter, on that player's hand (in contact with the ball) that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul.

Maybe he has you on "ignore" because of your propensity for off-topic and misleading posts, so he doesn't know that YOU need clarification. You made the nonsensical reference to "below the wrist" as meaning "the hand".

If you think something needs to be clarified, either clarify it yourself without misrepresenting the original quote or ask an on-point question without all the circular nonsense that makes some of your posts impossible to digest.

And please quit using the excuse that "somebody" needs clarification. Allow the adults in this forum to speak for themselves, we don't need an advocate.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree, on a shot the hand is above the wrist. Good point.

But, ilyazhito did say the hand.



I believe that ilyazhito may be confused, and may require a different interpretation than the one he has been using.

So you simply ignored his 3 other comments that referenced the arm and the one statement that referenced below the wrist during the shooting motion?

And the fact that you made this reference, "Let's see, the part of the arm below the wrist? Let's call it the hand"? The purpose of that? Can't we ever just stay on point so that whatever can be learned from the conversation doesn't get lost in your boredom?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So you simply ignored his 3 other comments that referenced the arm and the one statement that referenced below the wrist during the shooting motion?

That would be fine if he just said that he meant to say arm instead of hand, but he never did, nor did he edit his original post.

I still don't believe that he fully understands 4-24-2. But he should be by shortly to clarify.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That would be fine if he just said that he meant to say arm instead of hand, but he never did, nor did he edit his original post.

I still don't believe that he fully understands 4-24-2. But he should be by shortly to clarify.

I'll type slowly for youuuuuuuu.

He referenced the contact 5 different times. The first time, generically he typed "hand". The other 4 times he clearly indicated the contact was to the arm. So you cherry-picked one statement simply so you could post a Ginger Rogers video. That stuff gets annoying.

[ilyazhito]

I'm surprised that people seem to be arguing semantics, not necessarily the merits of the call that I made. It was on Trail's side of the lane, but still in an area where L, T, and C coverage could overlap. Lead had no call, but he was probably either screened or looking at lower bodies. I believe that I did the right thing by waiting for the T to make the call, followed by a cadence whistle and selling the call. What would y'all have done in this situation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I'm surprised that people seem to be arguing semantics, not necessarily the merits of the call that I made. It was on Trail's side of the lane, but still in an area where L, T, and C coverage could overlap. Lead had no call, but he was probably either screened or looking at lower bodies. I believe that I did the right thing by waiting for the T to make the call, followed by a cadence whistle and selling the call. What would y'all have done in this situation?

Don't care where you were, or how you sold the call.

End it now. Contact on hand? Or, contact on arm?

Say the right word and this will all go away.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... illegal use of hands, for hitting the shooter on the hand ...