Maybe. But there's still got to be a pretty obvious A/D thing going on before I"ll call this. Same with the "reach" defined above. If B1 pokes the ball away, and there's basically no contact, I've got nothing. If B1 tries to poke, but A1 "clamps down" there's no illegal advantage, I've got no foul. If A1 uses her leverage to displace B1, I might call a "hold" on A1. B1 would have to do something pretty blatant before I'd call anything on her.

It is a foul in this sitch. almost every time. It is a huge advantage for the defense to reach/swing/swipe at the ball without penalty for contacting the arms.

So you're going to call a foul on the defender even tho they didn't contact the ball handler - remeber it was the ball handler who clamped down on the defender's arm.

What do you report to the table? Hold on the defender? But they weren't doing the holding, were they?

What do you tell the coach? "Coach, if he didn't stick his arm in there it wouldn't have been held?"

I am confused...again. (JR- shut up)

A) The reaching itself is most definitely NOT a foul.

B) If the "poke-er" makes a little incidental contact, there's still nothing to call, just as you wouldn't call anything Just because they "reached in" from the front. I mean, you wouldn't, would you?

C) There's no advantage gained in this sitch, unless B1 gets the ball away from A1. If A1 reacts appropriately, and keeps control of the ball, where's the foul?

D) I agree that the defender doesn't have LGP in this sitch, but unless there's some pretty rough play, I've got nothing on B. Probably nothing on A.

I've seen this happen a few times in grade school ball. I guess I'd say no advantage, incidental contact, unless it got to the point that A1 swung his body around and B1 ended up on the floor. Then maybe I'd have the hold on A1.

If the "poke-er" reaches from behind as the pokee dribbles away from him I call it.

If the "poke-er" reaches out & around the front of the pokee as he's dribbling around him I call it.

Ya gotta nip it, nip it in the bud, as old whathizname sez.

There's a somewhat subtle difference between the original sitch and your statement. In your statement, you're saying the player is reaching and contacting the arm. In the original sitch, B1 reached out and A1 contacted B1. Now, if B1 reaches through, hits A1's forearm, and A1 drops the ball, there's my illegal advantage and there's my foul. But LGP has no bearing on whether to call the foul. And just because B1 "invaded" A1's space, doesn't make B1 automatically guilty of a foul.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~thefanns/images/bcrawl.jpg

Yabut, does he have LGP?

Even without contact?

Yes I am in this situation, it fits the definition of a foul. Any "reach" that I can judge arm to arm contact is a foul unless it is a loose ball.
I don't know how you manage a game, but I don't tell the coach anything in that sitch. The foul occurred before the hold, A1 just held it there (without grasping with his hand according to the sitch) to make it easier for the official to see.

Same sitch except A1 lowers his head and gets poked in the eye by a thumb. You gonna no-call that. Contact is just as incidental.

The Offense has no need to avoid the contact in this situation and the defense must insure there is no contact to avoid liability of a foul.

I'll get to your post later Rainmaker.

I don't see what LGP has to do with reaching for the ball from behind. Each of us has seen a guard come from behind and steal the ball from an unsuspecting dribbler, right? No contact, no foul. Therefore, when the contact is initiated by A1 clamping his arm down, how is that foul on B1? LGP has nothing to do with it.

Or in other words, what if he DOES have LGP, reach in for the ball, and get his arm clamped down? You're saying his position makes a difference? :confused:

I'm kinda waiting for a good answer to that one too. Haven't seen one yet.

Chuck and M&M Guy:

I am going to piggy back on your first posts.

I would definitely use the term you used and if A1 did not unlock then I would have a holding foul on A1. Having a legal guarding position is not relevant in this play. B1 is allowed to attack the ball and A1 cannot use illegal contact to prevent B1 from attacking the ball. Holding B1's arm is definitely illegal contact.

MTD, Sr.

I've almost never seen a player use this playground move successfully without *some* sort of arm or body contact. (I say almost never because I believe you should never say never.)

It's bad defense and to let it go introduces all sorts of ugliness into your game. IOW, I've got to be 118% sure there was no contact before I'll let it go.

Nip it.