"Reaching" Sitch--Whatcha got?

[mplagrow]

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?

[ChuckElias]

"Unlock!!"

[SamIAm]

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.

[Dan_ref]

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

[Nate1224hoops]

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.

[rockyroad]

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

[M&M Guy]

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

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".

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

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

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?

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Well that's a horse of a different color!

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?...

[SamIAm]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

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".

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

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?...

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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by SamIAm

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

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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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?

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...)

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

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...)

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

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

Thanks!

[All_Heart]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.