Legal and Illegal use of elbows

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

How is contact caused by A1 moving into B1 a foul on B1, if B1 got that spot WITHOUT contacting A1?

You conveniently ignored the following play in the other thread, so I'll repeat it.

B1 has LGP and is vertical, but loses their balance and leans back, A1 then occupies the space that B1 had before they leaned back and lost their vertical position, B1 then straightens back to vertical and pushes A1 with their chest. Based on how you'd call the other play, A1 just committed a PC foul, because they got pushed for occupying space that was once occupied by a player's vertical plane, even though that space was no longer occupied.

blindzebra:

It is not my intent to be mean, but I have no idea what you are discussing, and just what does it have to do with this thread.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

blindzebra:

It is not my intent to be mean, but I have no idea what you are discussing, and just what does it have to do with this thread.

MTD, Sr.

You said, "If there is contact between A1 and the defender when A1 attempts to return to a more upright position, the foul is charged to the defender," and " Please see my postings in the Legal Guarding Position Thread."

The play I posted in both the LGP thread and this thread is one I'd like you to explain.

Once again, if A1 can push B1 in that first play after they
left a vertical position and B1 occupied that space without making contact...yet you say it is a foul on B1... would you not need to call a PC foul on A1 in the play I outlined above, since B1 had a right to that vacated space that used to be their "cylinder of verticallity."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

blindzebra:

I am being consistent in both plays. The problem is that the concept of verticalty applies to both the offense and the defense. I am sorry that you and everybodyelse who disagrees with my position do not accept that concept that verticality applies to both the offense and the defense, but is a fact of basketball life.

Just because everybodyelse says I am wrong does not mean I am wrong. Unlike too many politicians, when I am asked to make a rules interpretation, I do not run a flag up a flag pole to see which way the wind is blowing. I base my interpretations upon the rules and casebook plays that apply to the situation. If the play is an exceptionally unsual one I will send my intepretation to the editor(s) of the appropriate rules committees as well as some of the current and past members of the appropriate rules committees for vetting.

The play being discussed in this thread as well as the other thread are very pedestrian plays If either of these two plays were on the NFHS rules examination that my student officials must pass to become registered by the OhioHSAA I would expect them to get the play(s) correct.

I guess you could say that I am not going to admit that I am wrong because I am the only one advocating my position as you requested in the other thread. My position is the correct one. If you find my attitude arrogant there is really nothing I can do about that; I just call them as the rules tell me to call them.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
blindzebra:

I am being consistent in both plays. The problem is that the concept of verticalty applies to both the offense and the defense. I am sorry that you and everybodyelse who disagrees with my position do not accept that concept that verticality applies to both the offense and the defense, but is a fact of basketball life.

Just because everybodyelse says I am wrong does not mean I am wrong. Unlike too many politicians, when I am asked to make a rules interpretation, I do not run a flag up a flag pole to see which way the wind is blowing. I base my interpretations upon the rules and casebook plays that apply to the situation. If the play is an exceptionally unsual one I will send my intepretation to the editor(s) of the appropriate rules committees as well as some of the current and past members of the appropriate rules committees for vetting.

The play being discussed in this thread as well as the other thread are very pedestrian plays If either of these two plays were on the NFHS rules examination that my student officials must pass to become registered by the OhioHSAA I would expect them to get the play(s) correct.

I guess you could say that I am not going to admit that I am wrong because I am the only one advocating my position as you requested in the other thread. My position is the correct one. If you find my attitude arrogant there is really nothing I can do about that; I just call them as the rules tell me to call them.

MTD, Sr.

So would you call a PC foul in my play, or not? If you would call the defense for being pushed when they had verticality and LGP in the first case, would you call A1 for a PC foul for legally entering B1's vacated vertical plane then getting pushed by B1?

You have yet to show one rule or case play that shows your sole point of view, NONE of your previous plays fit the first play.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

blindzebra:

Please email me at [email protected]. Thank you.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Aren't you gonna answer the questions, Mark? Others are interested in your reply too.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Aren't you gonna answer the questions, Mark? Others are interested in your reply too.

I have given my interpretations for the two plays. The questions have been asked as answered.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I have given my interpretations for the two plays. The questions have been asked as answered.

Funny, I could have sworn I've yet to see you answer my question about, if B1 has LGP and is vertical, then loses their balance and leans back so that one leg is extended in front of their body so they are no longer vertical...sounds identical to the play that started all of this...A1 then enters that vacated space above B1's extended leg WITHOUT CONTACT and is vertical, then B1 moves back to a vertical position and contacts A1 knocking A1 over.

What is your call? Based on how you called the origional play you must believe this is a PC foul, right?

[davidw]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I, too, could have posted a cursory "you're wrong", and decreased my response time. Instead, I took the high road and decided to inform and educate the masses on the proper application of this rule. And the thanks that I get for doing so is some churl essentially saying "Nanny, Nanny, Boo Boo" to me. Well, some day you will recognize my brilliance and give me my proper due!

Hey, that "MTD Sr. post reply" course that I took is actually taking hold, I see.

JR, where do we sign up? I wish to obtain that certification!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
If you find my attitude arrogant there is really nothing I can do about that; I just call them as the rules tell me to call them.

Mark, I'm not calling you arrogant, but I don't understand your position. I think you're saying that the cylinder of verticality is above the pivot foot (which in the original play is extended frontward from the rest of the body). But the part that puzzles me is how there can be any verticality at all when the player's body isn't vertical. Once he moves away from vertical, doesn't he give up his rights to that space?

[IBHookin43]

As I read these posts I get the impression that there may be disagreement regarding whether a player with the ball under the chin with elbows out (i.e., chinning the ball) is in a legal offensive position (if there is such a concept).

Clearly, if the player with the ball holds out a fully extended stiff arm horizontally with the intent to hold off the player from getting close to the ball, that would not be considered legal (even though he claimed that space first). In such a case, a defensive player initiating contact with the arm to get closer to the ball should not be called for the foul (should they?). Would this be a PC foul?

I get the impression that Rainmaker is stating that holding the ball under the chin with the elbows out is a similar situation. And, if the defender initiates contact with the elbow to get closer to the ball, then it is a PC foul on the offense...even if the player with the ball is not pivoting or moving the elbows. Rainmaker states..."The defender is entitled to that space right next to the ball-handler". That can't be right...can it? Coaches have been teaching "chinning the ball" for years.

And, there should be a distinction made between "creating space" and "claiming space". Is Snagwells also also trying to say...find another way to claim space?

I realize the original thread was describing a "creating space" situation, but some of the responses seemed to go a little bit too far. That is, what is legal space that can be claimed.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by IBHookin43
Clearly, if the player with the ball holds out a fully extended stiff arm horizontally with the intent to hold off the player from getting close to the ball, that would not be considered legal (even though he claimed that space first). In such a case, a defensive player initiating contact with the arm to get closer to the ball should not be called for the foul (should they?). Would this be a PC foul?

Could be, depending on disadvantage illegally conferred.

Originally posted by IBHookin43
I get the impression that Rainmaker is stating that holding the ball under the chin with the elbows out is a similar situation. And, if the defender initiates contact with the elbow to get closer to the ball, then it is a PC foul on the offense...even if the player with the ball is not pivoting or moving the elbows. Rainmaker states..."The defender is entitled to that space right next to the ball-handler". That can't be right...can it? Coaches have been teaching "chinning the ball" for years.

I don't think I specified whether the ball-handler was moving or not moving the elbows. If the defender just walks into a stationary elbow, I've got nothin'. But if the elbow moves toward the defender at all, it's PC. Chinning is legal, but the elbows technically speaking aren't within the allowable space, so if they make contact, it's a PC

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
blindzebra:
Just because everybodyelse says I am wrong does not mean I am wrong.
MTD, Sr.

True - you're only wrong if I say you're wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

Chinning is legal, but the elbows technically speaking aren't within the allowable space, so if they make contact, it's a PC

[/B][/QUOTE]Iow, chinning is legal but the elbows are outside the player's "cone of verticality". Right?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Chinning is legal, but the elbows technically speaking aren't within the allowable space, so if they make contact, it's a PC

[/B]

Iow, chinning is legal but the elbows are outside the player's "cone of verticality". Right? [/B][/QUOTE]

Uh, yeah...it was right on the tip of my tongue, I couldn't quite remember the proper wording....