hand's part of the ball

[alfreedog]

While I do agree with some statements, it is clearly a foul on B if he slaps A's hand when it is on the ball. If B does slap A's hand and everyone hears it you would call a foul. So why not call the foul when there is contact and only you hear it, it is still a foul. That is not good defense when A controlls the ball and B gets controll by hitting my hand.

[Old Dude Ref]

Let's try another analogy.

I'm sure most of you golf. Let's suppose you stopped your swing one foot AFTER you hit your ball. Would you say that wouldn't have an affect on the flight? Belive me I've hit enough shots under a tree to know there's quite a negative affect on my ball when I can only followthru so far. Same thing on a shot. Go in your driveway and try it. Have someone foul you on the hand (or arm) just when the ball's released. You can't tell me it doesn't affect the shot.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Old Dude Ref
Let's try another analogy.

I'm sure most of you golf. Let's suppose you stopped your swing one foot AFTER you hit your ball. Would you say that wouldn't have an affect on the flight? Belive me I've hit enough shots under a tree to know there's quite a negative affect on my ball when I can only followthru so far. Same thing on a shot. Go in your driveway and try it. Have someone foul you on the hand (or arm) just when the ball's released. You can't tell me it doesn't affect the shot.

Follow-through is very important, and I certainly call fouls on the shooter before the shooter returns to the floor, *BUT*

The golf analogy doesn't work perfectly here. The reason why your golf shot is changed is because you slow down your swing in order to have the club stop 1 foot past the tee. Assuming the shooter doesn't think he/she is going to get fouled, contact after the shot will not affect the shot.

The assumption, however, is one of the reasons why I do call some fouls on the follow-through, though.

[mick]

Originally posted by Old Dude Ref
Let's try another analogy.

I'm sure most of you golf. Let's suppose you stopped your swing one foot AFTER you hit your ball. Would you say that wouldn't have an affect on the flight? Belive me I've hit enough shots under a tree to know there's quite a negative affect on my ball when I can only followthru so far. Same thing on a shot. Go in your driveway and try it. Have someone foul you on the hand (or arm) just when the ball's released. You can't tell me it doesn't affect the shot.

What Dexter said.
He knows stuff.
mick

[mick]

Originally posted by alfreedog
While I do agree with some statements, it is clearly a foul on B if he slaps A's hand when it is on the ball. If B does slap A's hand and everyone hears it you would call a foul. So why not call the foul when there is contact and only you hear it, it is still a foul. That is not good defense when A controlls the ball and B gets controll by hitting my hand.

alfreedog,
How do you know what I would call? Is that like, "It sounded like a strike" ?
I called a sound one time. The sound was a sharp smack on the ball. ...Egg on my face.
mick

[rainmaker]

Okay, I've been gone all day, and it's probably just as well, since this thread has been much more entertaining and interesting without me!

I call it good defense if B can get the ball away from A and oob without B touching the ball, so that B gets the throw-in. By rule, that's the way the game is played.

I'm also very glad to have no Harry Potter fans in the family. I would not want to stay awake till midnight tonight!! Now if it was Beverly Clearly, I'd stand in line for three days, but I'm afraid those days are over.

[Old Dude Ref]

Thank you Dexter.

I agree that it doesn't happen often but for some to never call it because it doesn't affect the shot is simply not true. It is definitely a judgement call but it does happen.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by alfreedog
While I do agree with some statements, it is clearly a foul on B if he slaps A's hand when it is on the ball. If B does slap A's hand and everyone hears it you would call a foul. So why not call the foul when there is contact and only you hear it, it is still a foul. That is not good defense when A controlls the ball and B gets controll by hitting my hand.

The rule does not say that in fact it says the exact opposite. If you are going by sound, you are guessing. There are plenty of times when a defender will clap their hands on a shot attempt. I've seen defenders hit their teammates arm playing a shot, and that makes a slapping sound too. Michael Jordan used to hit his own arm when he turned his body and did a reverse layup.

You ref by sound and you'll be wrong most of the time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

The rule does not say that in fact it says the exact opposite. If you are going by sound, you are guessing. There are plenty of times when a defender will clap their hands on a shot attempt. I've seen defenders hit their teammates arm playing a shot, and that makes a slapping sound too. Michael Jordan used to hit his own arm when he turned his body and did a reverse layup.

You ref by sound and you'll be wrong most of the time.

Lah me.

What BZ said!

Did you read R10-6-1, Al? You're completely wrong on the concept used for this one.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Old Dude Ref

I'm sure most of you golf. Let's suppose you stopped your swing one foot AFTER you hit your ball. Would you say that wouldn't have an affect on the flight?

Absolutely not. The flight of the ball is set by the contact of the ball with the club head. End of story. Once that contact is over, it's impossible to further affect the flight of the ball in any way, shape or form, no matter what you do, as long as you don't touch the ball again.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Absolutely not. The flight of the ball is set by the contact of the ball with the club head. End of story. Once that contact is over, it's impossible to further affect the flight of the ball in any way, shape or form, no matter what you do, as long as you don't touch the ball again.

The physics you describe are correct. The real question is whether you can plan to stop your swing one foot after the contact, without changing the contact. Probably not, as I'm sure you would agree.

But that's not a good comparison to the contact after the shot in basketball. The shooter should plan on following through, and then take whatever hit comes afterward. The defender should hope to influence the shooter to alter her shot to avoid the effect of the blocking. This is not, in itself, illegal.

If there's slight contact after the ball is gone, it's usually incidental, as long as the defender is maintaining legal hand and arm position. However, it doesn't matter how slight the contact is, a foul is committed, if the defender's hands aren't in a legal position. There may still be good reasons not to call it, but it's much more justifiable a call than the slight contact after the ball's gone with the hands completely legal.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

The physics you describe are correct. The real question is whether you can plan to stop your swing one foot after the contact, without changing the contact. Probably not, as I'm sure you would agree.

But that's not a good comparison to the contact after the shot in basketball. The shooter should plan on following through, and then take whatever hit comes afterward. The defender should hope to influence the shooter to alter her shot to avoid the effect of the blocking. This is not, in itself, illegal.

If there's slight contact after the ball is gone, it's usually incidental, as long as the defender is maintaining legal hand and arm position. However, it doesn't matter how slight the contact is, a foul is committed, if the defender's hands aren't in a legal position. There may still be good reasons not to call it, but it's much more justifiable a call than the slight contact after the ball's gone with the hands completely legal.

Once the ball is gone it's simple, does the contact hinder the shooter's landing or ability to rebound? Don't make it that complicated.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Okay, I've been gone all day, and it's probably just as well, since this thread has been much more entertaining and interesting without me!

I call it good defense if B can get the ball away from A and oob without B touching the ball, so that B gets the throw-in. By rule, that's the way the game is played.

I'm also very glad to have no Harry Potter fans in the family. I would not want to stay awake till midnight tonight!! Now if it was Beverly Clearly, I'd stand in line for three days, but I'm afraid those days are over.

I took my daughter to Border's last night for the Harry Potter thing. It was kind of fun. I got some writing done, my daughter had a lot of fun, and I had no idea there were so many hot women working in book stores. I need to buy more books!

As to it being good defense, if you are saying it's "good defense" for B to knock the ball away from A by hitting A's hand while it's on the ball, we have very different definitions of good defense. How can you call B hitting A intentionally good defense? Do you see coaches teaching their kids this? "Okay guys, listen up. Today we're going to drill hitting the opponents hand while it's on the ball to deflect the ball out of bounds." I just don't see it. At most a kid might get lucky to have it work out. It is certainly a high risk, low percentage gamble.

You'll also have a devil of a time convincing me that the intent of that little exception in the rule is to allow B to take cheap shots at A's hand. Or that they intended that if B hit A's hand and thus knocked the ball oob that they intended for B to have the ball. The contact is "incidental to an attempt to play the ball" and should be treated as such. Ignore the incidental contact and make your call based on B playing the ball.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

As to it being good defense, if you are saying it's "good defense" for B to knock the ball away from A by hitting A's hand while it's on the ball, we have very different definitions of good defense. How can you call B hitting A intentionally good defense?

I'm not talking about hitting. I guess I'm not making myself clear. I'm talking about the play where B tries to tap? bump? guide? the ball away from A, and in the process B provides the force for the ball to go oob, but does it without ever touching the ball. It's a play on the ball, and the contact is incidental to the play, and A is the last one to touch, so B gets the ball for a throw-in. What's not to like?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I'm not talking about hitting. I guess I'm not making myself clear. I'm talking about the play where B tries to tap? bump? guide? the ball away from A, and in the process B provides the force for the ball to go oob, but does it without ever touching the ball. It's a play on the ball, and the contact is incidental to the play, and A is the last one to touch, so B gets the ball for a throw-in. What's not to like?

It's kinda hard imo to say the contact was "incidental" when B ended up gaining a definite advantage from the contact.

Incidental contact is something that doesn't affect a play. I don't think you can say that about B's contact in this particular play. The contact made A lose possession of the ball.

That's what I don't like and that's why I wouldn't give B the ball for a throw-in.