Confirmation on the "Hand is part of the ball"-- this is only the *part* of the hand that is actually in contact with (ie, FLAT on) the ball, yes?

If I recall, the rule just states that the hand "in contact" with the ball should be considered part of the ball-- not the "part of the hand in contact". So a literal interpretation would mean that if someone's finishing a layup with a finger roll, I could swat his hand and miss the ball completely, as long as the ball is still touching his fingertips, and as long as I just touched hand, not wrist. Obviously (I hope), that ain't so.

Also, I'd heard rumors about a rule change regarding this rule. T/F?

Thanks!

No, the rule is not going to be changed.

If the hand is in contact with the ball, and unintentional contact is made on the hand, there is no foul. That's all of the hand, not just part of it. Heaven help us if we have to start worrying about whether the part of the hand that was contacted was touching the ball or not.

4-24-2
It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

So then...
 

So my scenario with the finger roll, where I get ONLY hand, zero ball, is okay? As long as his fingertip is touching the ball, his whole hand is fair game? In practice, I would assume most refs would guess that some part of the wrist was contacted, and call a foul?

And in my scenario, what about follow through-- when I initially touch his hand, it's on the ball, but due to the contact, his hand comes OFF the ball. Do we have a foul NOW, or would that be incidental contact, since the ball is already gone?

I know that there'd be a large judgment element here, but I'd like to know the basis for the judgment.



[Edited by Shogun on Apr 11th, 2002 at 01:49 PM]

As far as rule change goes.....
 

Hi everybody! I haven't been around for a while - so I hope you have all missed my FEEBLE interpretations - so here is another one for you :)

In the last FIBA rule changes, the section that explictly stated that the hand is part of the ball was removed. This caused a great deal of confusion - as it left many players, coaches and referees thinking that this meant the hand was specifically NOT part of the ball.

After much dicussion, the FIBA technical committee has decided that the hand is still part of the ball, but any doubt must go in favour of the offence. In other words if any contact is seen, and it is unable to tell if the contact was on the hand or say, the wrist, then the referee MUST call a foul.

In the scenario of you (Shogun) hitting a player on the hand, without making any contact with the ball (and this especially applies to a finger role) I personally am going to whack you everytime. I reckon I can sell the call that you got the players wrist, better than you can argue all you got was hand :)

Hope I have helped.

I rarely call a foul for contact on the hand, even after the ball has left the hand. The wrist is a foul.

But isn't the wrist considered to be part of the hand? :rolleyes:

Chuck

Ask yourself this: have you ever had a "wrist job"?

Actually that's a heckuva answer.Btw,does the word "wolkenkuckkucksheim" mean anything to you?:D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

Ask yourself this: have you ever had a "wrist job"?

I just knew that if I threw it out there, somebody would knock it out of the park!! :D

And, no, "wolkenheimenhemmer" or whatever, doesn't mean anything to me :confused:

Chuck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett Quote: Ask yourself this: have you ever had a "wrist job"? I just knew that if I threw it out there, somebody would knock it out of the park!! :D And, no, "wolkenheimenhemmer" or whatever, doesn't mean anything to me :confused: Chuck

That question was for Mark P.,Chuck.Maybe he can come up with the answer.Sometimes I think he's from there.:D
JUST KIDDING,MARK!

No. Is it metric?

Mark: You seem to be going further and further around the bend. :D Is it all the rain out there? BTW, does your son ever read your posts and comment (off the record) to you?

There are several other post-ers on this board who aren't having any problem at all with "all that rain."

I think Padgett's pharmacist has been on vacation the last three weeks or so. I mean, have you noticed how many times he has apologized to me about things? Clearly, his chemicals are out of balance!!

My son lives in Olympia, WA and he tells me that during the rainy winter season (I know it last for 9 months), that people do some weird and crazy things. I noticed that Mark seemed to be creeping closer and closer to the "darker side". :D I love the Northwest. Was stationed at Whidbey Island for 2 years and I get back to that area (Bangor, Silverdale, Keyport, Whidbey) at least once a year for work. My Visa seems to take a tremendous hit everytime I visit my son.

For those of you who have never visited the Pacific Northwest, please come during our annual rain festival. It runs from January through December each year. ;)

Notice that my smilie at the top of my post is wearing "rainglasses".

This is probably why the OU and OSU mascosts are "water related"....Ducks & Beavers. :D BTW, the Evergreen State College (my son's alma mater) mascot is a Geoduck....some sort of slug that likes water.

PLAY SELECTIVITY, PLAY SELECTIVITY.....

Ummmmm. . . Huh?

Chuck,

Thanks, I was reading one forum and posting in the other. So recall the Play seclectivity comment

Whew! Thought I was losing it!! :)

Either your son hasn't been ther very long, or you aren't visiting often enough. The Goeduc (note correct spelling-- pronunciation: Goo-ey-duck or Gwee-duck) is a clam, which clam-lovers treasure as the very best there is. I personally hate clams, so I'm not endorsing anything here, just repeating facts.

While we're on this subject, let's not forget our other Oregon major college, Portland State. Their teams are called the Vikings. I have no idea why. Vikings never made it this far west. However, when Darryl "Mouse" Davis was the head football coach, the team was affectionally known as the "Fighting Mice."

BTW - Mouse was the architect of the run-and-shoot offense and coached Neil Lomax using it when Neil threw for about 10 million yards in college. PSU actually won games then by scores of 93-6 and 102-14. One of the teams they beat was Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo coached by Darryl Lamonica. The other victim was Delaware State. After that game, the PSU baseball coach was quoted in the paper as inquiring if Delaware State had a baseball team.

That was cold.

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Apr 25th, 2002 at 09:00 PM]

Rainmaker: My bad! You are correct about it being a clam. As soon as I saw your post, I remembered. I think I thought (??) that it looked sort of like a slug. My son has been in Olympia since 1995. I will be working in Bangor sometime in September -- right after the week of summer you guys have.