A1 is holding the ball backcourt, looking to pass. B1 tries to reach in from behind, between A1's arm and body, to poke the ball out. A1 clamps down his arm, thus locking B1's hand under his arm. He doesn't let go for a couple seconds, protecting the ball and possibly waiting for a whistle.

It looks ugly. Technically, I suppose, you could call A1 for a holding foul. Of course, everyone wants the nonexistent "reaching in" call. Do you call something here or do you pass on it?

"Unlock!!"

Foul on B1. B1 doews not have legal guarding position, not that it matters when you "reach" and make contact with A1's arm. A1 has no responsibility to avoid B1 arm in this situation. Unless A1 is flagrant, foul B1.

I got a complementary pass to a health & fitness club for B1, who apparently needs some strength training.

I got a holding violation on B1 (call that is made when everyone in the gym is scream REACH) b/c he is not in legal guarding position if he is attempting to dislodge the ball by reaching.

I'm with Chuck..."Let go, white" and move on.

Aw, come on Dan, quit being so artificial...

I'm a little uncomfortable with calling the foul on B1 solely because he doesn't have "legal guarding position". That would have no bearing on whether that player commited a foul in this case, just as it has no bearing on whether or not a foul could be commited against him. If there is a foul, B1 would have to initiate contact that puts A1 at a disadvantage. It could be argued rather easily that A1 initiated the contact (clamping down on the arm) that put B1 at a disadvantage. So I'm with Chuck - "Let go!"

For those that are willing to call the foul on B1, what would you say if, as A1 clamps down on the arm, A1 pivots hard, swinging B1 around through the air and throwing him to the ground. Would you still have a foul on B1?

As far as the fans yelling for the "reach", I give them just as much credability as the ones that yell for "over the back".

Well that's a horse of a different color!

In this case I would refer B1 to Huang's School of Karate. He needs a little work on his self-defense.

http://www.sfmusicbox.com/images/000...0011977_hs.jpg

The Great and Powerful Oz is working on getting me a heart when it comes to dealing with coaches that want "reaches" and "over the backs" called.

I'm sure he's working on getting you a brain?... :D

Yep, foul on B1, then T, maybe flagrant T, on A1 for dead ball activity.

Good catch on the reference to Oz!

But no, I didn't ask for a brain, I asked for something else. Got it too! Here it is, waddaya think?

http://www.tomahawk2002.com/~atek/images/finger.jpg

Sam, do you like green eggs and...er...never mind.

Just curious as to why you would have a foul on B1 in this original sitch?

You only asked for one finger? How come you didn't ask for all five? (I guess it would be symptomatic of someone who doesn't have a brain...) :D

Ok, I take back the artificial comment. That finger does look real.

I guess I'm not the only one...

http://downloads.redjupiter.com/user.../scarecrow.jpg Thanks!

:p

B1 does not have to initiate contact in order for there to be a foul. If a B1 is standing in front of the A1 with his hands over A1's vertical area and A1 jumps straight up, it is a foul on B1. A1 initiates the contact but it's a foul on B1 for not having legal guarding position.

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

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! :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mplagrow

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: 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! :D

Yeah, I hear ya.

Check this out:

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

Has anyone told JR about this one? ;)

Let's not tell him.

It will be our little secret!

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...

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.......

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?".

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

Let me get this right. Are you saying that if B1 has LGP, reaches for the ball, clubs A1 across the arm but doesn't get the ball out, you've got nothing because there was no advantage? I just want to understand what you're saying.

Depends on what A1 does / is doing / keeps doing. Also depends on the meaning of the word "clubs."

I've called this a foul, and I've let it go. IN general, if A1 is just holding the ball, then I'll let the first contact go if it's relatively minor. If B1 does it again, or if it's significant contact (maybe what you meant by "clubs"), I'll get it.

"Clubs?" No, If he hits him that hard, he's probably moved his arm significantly. Or, as they say, this becomes one of the obvious you need to call. :)
I'm talking about a slight brush as B1 reaches across or from behind. SamIAm wants to call it if there's any contact whatsoever. I want to know why contact on a reach is more of a foul than contact in any other situation.

OK. I can live with that.

And I want to know why contact by the offensive player holding the defenders arm is a foul on the friggin defender!!

And I still can't understand why A1, with the ball, would hold onto B1 like that. Or how it would be impossible for B1 to shake loose...but I'll play along...

...is it possible that when B1 reached in under A1's arm he fouled A1?

Nope...violates the very laws which hold our universe together. Couldn't possibly have happened...well, at least not according to the OP...

Me too.....

And I don't find out, heads will roll!

I always thought it was kind of a good idea to call the foul on the player doing the holding, not the player being held.

Btw, Rock, in about 2-3 rule books in a row, they had a POE on Post Play. From the 2003-04 book:
<b>POE 2 C Post Play:</b> <i>The offense can "shape up" to receive a pass or to force the defense to deply or assume a legal guarding position at the side, in front or <b>behind</b> the offensive post player. When the offensive post player then uses the "swim stroke", pushes, <b>pins</b>, elbows, forearms, <b>holds</b>, clears with the body or just generally demonstrates rough physical movement or tactics, this is a foul on the offensive player and must be called.</i>

And don't get me started about that offensive pass interference call that wiped out that touchdown either. Remember that one?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 24th, 2006 at 01:02 PM]

Arrrrrgggghhhhh...where's the picture of the little kid, Dan? I need it!!

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/b4.gif
Is that the one, ol' buddy?

LOL. . .that was mine! Here you go:

http://www.2elevate.com/sweden/dinne...%20I%20get.jpg

http://www.2elevate.com/sweden/dinne...%20I%20get.jpg

http://io2.steelers.com/MediaContent...mauf_62903.jpg

Or, is this the one?

Ooh, good point. I might even have an intentional foul on A1 now. Thanks, Dan.

If that works for ya make sure you make it an intentional T.

You missed the whole point. B1 DID'T contact A1's arms...at all. A1 made the contact. Can't be a foul on B1.

WOW. :(

While the offense has no need to avoid contact, they sure can't take the opprotunity to grab and hold on...as the situation was presented. I've either got nothing or a foul on A1. This is no different than B1 going for the ball and A1 swatting B1's hand away.