L of a play

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Let me rephrase...we, the referees who make the correct call,....

Hard to say that when you don't know what the correct call is.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All fine except it is all wrong.

I say the same thing about your opinion.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A player gets a spot "on the playing court", not in the air over another player and his/her spot. A1, having his/her arms over B1 is not in that spot at all. A1 is invading B1's spot. Again, you are not in a spot just becasue you get your arms over the spot.

So whenever a player reaches out to grab a ball over an opponent's head, that opponent would be smart to reach up and smack his arms away.

That fits your description of a legal play. BTW I notice that you didn't respond to my "George Gervin" example.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If that were even remotely true, you could set a screen by extendeding your arms into a space before the another player arrives....but the rules clearly indicate that having the arms extended into a space doesn't give that player the right to that spot.

Screening is a contact situation. The rules are specifically written with the expectation that contact will occur. Therefore, it would be dangerous to allow players to extend their arms and elbows as if blocking like an offensive lineman. A screener must allow the opponent to come to him and cause the contact. That is why screening isn't a foul. If the screener reaches out and causes the contact that's illegal.

That is completely different from this situation in which the player is not attempting to cause contact. He is jumping and/or reaching over an opponent to catch the ball. He is not the one who is causing any contact. It is the player who reacts late who causes the contact.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So whenever a player reaches out to grab a ball over an opponent's head, that opponent would be smart to reach up and smack his arms away.

Depends...the rules say a player can raise their arms up and/or jump...verticality. If they remain in their vertical space, and are doing what the rule expressly says is permitted and contact is involved I am not calling a foul. However, that is not the same as swatting them back and forth and causing contact...they can raise them and only raise them.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That fits your description of a legal play. BTW I notice that you didn't respond to my "George Gervin" example.

Didn't see that post.....no foul if the defenders arms were being raised straight up. The shooter has to expect that the defender will strectch to fully occupy the spot legally obtained.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Screening is a contact situation. The rules are specifically written with the expectation that contact will occur. Therefore, it would be dangerous to allow players to extend their arms and elbows as if blocking like an offensive lineman. A screener must allow the opponent to come to him and cause the contact. That is why screening isn't a foul. If the screener reaches out and causes the contact that's illegal.

Exactly...and the same principle applies...arms extended outside of a player's vertical space are not protected if the other player has remained in their vertical space.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is completely different from this situation in which the player is not attempting to cause contact. He is jumping and/or reaching over an opponent to catch the ball. He is not the one who is causing any contact. It is the player who reacts late who causes the contact.

That player is invading the space of the opponent and will be guilty of the foul if there is contact that causes an advantage. If the player never jumps or attempts to go for the ball, there is likley no advantage but if the ball is above the players head, he/she has every right to jump and/or reach up for that ball. When their is contact, any player who has violated another player's vertical space has caused the contact and has fouled by being in an illegal position.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Depends...the rules say a player can raise their arms up and/or jump...verticality. If they remain in their vertical space, and are doing what the rule expressly says is permitted and contact is involved I am not calling a foul. However, that is not the same as swatting them back and forth and causing contact...they can raise them and only raise them.

So if I have the ball and hold it directly over your head while attempting to shoot or make a pass, you claim to be allowed to thrust your arms straight up and into my forearms knocking the ball free. I seriously doubt that is the proper reading of the rule.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That player is invading the space of the opponent and will be guilty of the foul if there is contact that causes an advantage. If the player never jumps or attempts to go for the ball, there is likley no advantage but if the ball is above the players head, he/she has every right to jump and/or reach up for that ball. When their is contact, any player who has violated another player's vertical space has caused the contact and has fouled by being in an illegal position.

This is not a question of applying the advantage/disadvantage philosophy. It is a textbook rules debate. The problem that we have is axiomatic. We start with different fundamental assumptions and thus each logically reach conflicting conclusions. I find no fault with your reasoning. It is your initial assumption that I believe is flawed. I've already stated my case as to why I think that.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are failing to understand that 4-23-3d must be taken in the context of what is written about guarding in 4-23-1. Those are the basics of guarding and everything that is stated there applies to the later articles.

Your guiding principle is occupying a legal position. Mine is the causing of contact.

You believe that having a legal position allows a player to cause contact. I believe that it merely allows that player to absorb contact. That difference may be minor, but it is key to how we each define "illegal contact."

Since I don't see either of us being able to change the other's mind about this fundamental point, it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others discuss this for themselves.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So if I have the ball and hold it directly over your head while attempting to shoot or make a pass, you claim to be allowed to thrust your arms straight up and into my forearms knocking the ball free. I seriously doubt that is the proper reading of the rule.


This is not a question of applying the advantage/disadvantage philosophy. It is a textbook rules debate. The problem that we have is axiomatic. We start with different fundamental assumptions and thus each logically reach conflicting conclusions. I find no fault with your reasoning. It is your initial assumption that I believe is flawed. I've already stated my case as to why I think that.


Your guiding principle is occupying a legal position. Mine is the causing of contact.

You believe that having a legal position allows a player to cause contact. I believe that it merely allows that player to absorb contact. That difference may be minor, but it is key to how we each define "illegal contact."

Since I don't see either of us being able to change the other's mind about this fundamental point, it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others discuss this for themselves.

Your claim is that they may only have them raised, but the language of the book doesn't say that at all. The language of the book clearly says a defender may "raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane". It doesn't say they may only have thier hands in a raised position. The difference is fundamental and important. It allows them the action of raising them while in LGP, not just the position.

Also see rule 10-6-1:

Extending the arms fully or partially other than vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs is not legal.

Again, the language here grants permsion for the action of extending the arms, not just the position of having them extended and it says that it is a foul if it is "other than vertically"...which, implies that doing so vertically is legal.

The fact that it "causes contact" is not relevant. Few fouls are based on who causes the contact but on who is doing something illegal when contact occurs.