What if the player hits/swats the ball with the back of his hand, even though he's holding the shoe in that same hand, and the shoe never touches the ball or other player? Or, for that matter, bats the ball away with the other hand? Stop play, or play on?

(1/2 curiosity, 1/2 pot-stirring)

Of course it does. If it increases the surface area of your hand, it's extended. Extension is not just outward from the fingertips; it's outward, period.

I really don't know wtf you're talking about here Chuck.

Maybe you mean to use the word "volume" instead of "area"??

If not then I admit you have sure confused the heck out of me.

For me, swatting <U>at</U> the ball with the hand that is holding a shoe is a gonna be a violation based on:<LI>Safety - shoe gets away and strikes a player, shoelace in an eye. <LI>Intimidation - heavy handed tactics due to increased mass like throwing an elbow

And so I ask myself,"Self? Why are you responding to this post?"
mick

When did Self respond? Or did he just delete it after posting it? And what about Naomi?

Anyway, I would think if the officials on that game had to deal with it if the shoe had contacted (heavy-handedly? grooooooan!) another player, I would think the whistle would've blown, someone would be pointing OOB, play would be held up a little while the kid put his shoe back on, (we probably would've had yet ANOTHER pic of Huggins in the stands), and away we go. That's what separates them from us, I guess. I sat there in the chair, and did not know what to do. I wonder what I would've come up with in an actual game situation.

Now, back to your original program, "Professors Chuck and Dan Discuss Grade School Geometry".

We coulda been discussing Shana Hiatt but nooooooo, the president of the Phil Helmuth fan club had to open up his yap...

Hey, I hope this doesn't mean I secretly like German porn?

Sure. Pick up a shoe. Is it exactly the same size and shape as your hand? [/B][/QUOTE]Nope, usually (and hopefully) it's the same size and shape as your foot.

Don't worry about it, if it turns out you do you'll get a letter from the NSA letting you know.

Use rule 3-5-3 for that one. It sez "Equipment shall not be modified from it's original manufactured state and <b>shall be worn in the manner the manufacturer intended it to be worn</b>". Iow, wristbands go on wrists, headbands go on heads, etc. We instruct our officials to call it that way too. [/B][/QUOTE]

We were instructed in our meeting on Wednesday evening that the SWEAT bands can be worn wherever, but only one per limb. [/B][/QUOTE]That ruling makes absolutely <b>zero</b> sense to me. If you're gonna interpret a rule to say that wearing wristbands or sweatbands anywhere on the body <b>is</b> legal, then under what authority can someone then making up a <b>new</b> rule restricting a player to one per limb? That ruling is completely illogical imo. If a player does wear 2 on a limb and that player refuses to take one off when told to, what rule in the book are you gonna use to enforce your edict? What rule do you cite to the coach when he asks why it's legal for his player to wear one, but it's illegal for his player to wear two?

But, it is what it is and you gotta follow it. Dumb as it is.

This is an interesting dicussion :)

So Mick, you're looking at it kind of like swinging elbows or striking with a fist (as far as rules that this is kind of like), that the act is potentially dangerous, even if contact isn't made (as in swinging elbows)?

Rainmaker, I had missed that part of the rule. Thanks. That kind of deflates any objections about a shoe being legal equipment. However, the rules still specify no penalty or remedy for not wearing a shoe properly, though the jersey rule is a useful analogue, I think.

Originally I had thought I might pass on contact with the shoe if it didn't extend the player's reach. I don't buy Chuck's "volume" justification, but I think he's probably right nonetheless. Any contact with the shoe is going to raise all kinds of red flags with a lot of people: players, coaches, fans, partners. It just isn't how basketball is supposed to be played. So we probably have to stop play if any "interesting" contact with that shoe occurs.

But I'm not sure I agree with POI. Depends on the situation, I guess. If he uses it on defense, and the offense has possession, it makes sense to give it back to the offense, so POI works there. If he blocks a shot with it, I don't feel right going to the arrow. It feels like he's done something wrong and the ball ought to go back to the shooting team. OTOH, there is rules support for POI (in general, not in this specific case) and none for a violation. But I still think it ought to go back to the shooter. As I was once told, "If you don't know what to do, do what's fair." If you throw goaltending or BI into this situation, I think the shoe is ignored and the violation called.

Would anybody think some kind of "preventive officiating" approach to prevent this would be advisable? Maybe as the kid with the shoe runs by ask him to give it to you? Maybe just holler "shoe," and hold your hands out, asking him to toss it to you?

Can't call GT if a thrown shoe hits a shot on the way <b>up</b>, can you?

What is the correct call?

Forgive me, Lord..... :D

Nope...but I'm gonna have a fragrant foul and automatic ejection for having that stinky shoe off in the first place...followed closely by my unveiling of the life-size poster of Dan and Shanna Hiatt that I found online earlier today - thus distracting the coaches long enough to make a quick escape out the nearest exit...

In the NBA, you can. But only in the NBA. :)

No mention of on the way up or down. As long as it's released, it's BI. That's from the '02 case book, which is unfortunately the most recent book I have.

If Ron Artest threw a fan and it hit the ball, would it be the same call under NBA rules?