"Reaching" Sitch--Whatcha got?

[mplagrow]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

It's bad defense--unless B1 manages to poke the ball out to a teammate who takes it in for a layup. I'll agree that I'd rather see B1 in LGP, squared up, but I don't know if I'm ready to categorize making a play for the ball from behind as bad defense. I've seen guards who were quite good at the "stealth steal."

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mplagrow

It's bad defense--unless B1 manages to poke the ball out to a teammate who takes it in for a layup. I'll agree that I'd rather see B1 in LGP, squared up, but I don't know if I'm ready to categorize making a play for the ball from behind as bad defense. I've seen guards who were quite good at the "stealth steal."

As a rule, guards who know how to steal the ball do not poke around their oppponent or poke from behind.

As a rule coaches who know how to teach steals give their players hell when they try this playground move.

In my experience anyway.

But it does happen every now & then, which is why I need to be 118% sure there was no contact before I let it go.

[Adam]

Okay, here's my quarter's worth (in Canadian $).

If I see it as described, and B1 is at all disadvantaged, I've got a hold on A1. "Coach, B1 reached in but didn't make any contact. Your player grabbed his arm. Easy call."
Disadvantage here, in my opinion, includes not being able to withdraw his arm to get into more advantageous position. It includes displacement and being impeded from further movement.
I may be in the minority on this one, but I'm leaning towards a PC if I'm sure there was no contact before A1 latched on. If I think A1 was fouled before latching on, I'll hit B1 for illegal use of the hands.

I could also see a potential double foul here.

[mplagrow]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

As a rule, guards who know how to steal the ball do not poke around their oppponent or poke from behind.

As a rule coaches who know how to teach steals give their players hell when they try this playground move.

In my experience anyway.

But it does happen every now & then, which is why I need to be 118% sure there was no contact before I let it go.

OK, Dan, I'm with you now. I just thought I'd provoke a little somethin' somethin'. Things have been a little slow on the board!

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mplagrow

Originally posted by Dan_ref

OK, Dan, I'm with you now. I just thought I'd provoke a little somethin' somethin'. Things have been a little slow on the board!

Yeah, I hear ya.

Check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html

[mplagrow]

Has anyone told JR about this one?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mplagrow
Has anyone told JR about this one?

Let's not tell him.

It will be our little secret!

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by SamIAm

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.

I think you might want to go back and read the original post SamIAm...doesn't say anything about the defender making any contact when he tried to poke the ball out...does say the offensive player clamped down on the defenders arm...how can you justify a foul on a defender who didn't cause any contact?

And saying the offense didn't grasp with his hand is bogus...you gonna let the offensive post player wrap his arm around the defender to hold him off as long as he doesn't grab with his hand?

Still waiting for anyone to give a good reason why this would be a foul on the defender and not the defendee...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

Yeah, I hear ya.

Check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html [/B][/QUOTE]Hmmmmmm.......a furry creature with seal-like teeth and a flat tail.

Sounds just like my wife.

Hmmmmmmm.......

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
[/B]

Still waiting for anyone to give a good reason why this would be a foul on the defender and not the defendee... [/B][/QUOTE]Me too.

The simplest question is "who's doing the holding?".

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Yeah, I hear ya.

Check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html [/B]

Hmmmmmm.......a furry creature with seal-like teeth and a flat tail.

Sounds just like my wife.

Hmmmmmmm....... [/B][/QUOTE]

Shut up.

I hope she kicks your @ss.

Again.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Hmmmmmm.......a furry creature with seal-like teeth and a flat tail.

Sounds just like my wife.

Hmmmmmmm....... [/B]

Shut up.

I hope she kicks your @ss.

Again. [/B][/QUOTE]With those short little legs? Didn't you see the picture? Hell, she's probably only about 3 inches taller than Chuck. Iow, she's gotta stand on a chair to kick a duck in the azz. The only way that she could kick my butt was if someone put her up to it.

Btw, you wouldn't tell dear ol' Castorcauda, would ya? The woman is a saint!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Shut up.

I hope she kicks your @ss.

Again. [/B]

With those short little legs? Didn't you see the picture? Hell, she's probably only about 3 inches taller than Chuck. Iow, she's gotta stand on a chair to kick a duck in the azz. The only way that she could kick my butt was if someone put her up to it.

Btw, you wouldn't tell dear ol' Castorcauda, would ya? The woman is a saint! [/B][/QUOTE]

Nah, I'm just playin witchya.

Love & kisses.

[SamIAm]

Originally posted by rainmaker

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.

a) we agree

b) we disagree, reaching-in with arm contact = foul.
A1 with ball, B1 reaches in from behind, A1 brings arm down next to his body, B1's hand/arm still fishing for the ball,
arm to arm contact at the least, foul and whistle, A1's arm now held tight against his body, incidental contact after foul unless flagrant.
Tell me what rule says A1 can't hold his arm against his own body if B1 has his arm between A1's arm and body.

B1 needs to complete his/her reaching before contact is made.


c) we disagree - do you say it is only a foul if the ball is knocked away when reaching? you don't call fouls on a reach when there is arm to arm or hand to arm contact? How is arm to arm contact incidental when reaching?

d) LGP has no bearing on this play, I mentioned it earlier as part of describing the play, but it has no effect. I have a foul on B1.

[Adam]

What is it about the arm contact that is illegal? Where's the advantage? Is there something magic about reaching that makes all contact a foul?