wingspan

Troward · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 09:31am

NFHS: Subvarsity game last night where most of the players were 15/16 years old and under 5'10. There was one much bigger player, probably 6'3 with extra long arms. This team played a pressing defense the whole game and this biiger player with the long wing span seemed to almost be able to trap the smaller opponent between his arms by running with his arms out parallel to the ground like Frankenstien. The bigger kid was faster so there was never really any contact but the PG could not get out from in between his arms.Is there any "impeeding" foul in this scenario?
Towards the end the PG was frustrated and pushed this kids arms down to get free which obviously is a foul on him, but his team was getting blown out and it didn't seem appropriate that they were still be pressing.

thanks
GTW

ChuckElias · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 09:38am

Troward,

The rules are written in such a way that no one gets an unfair advantage over the other players. However, being 6'3" with really long arms is a fair advantage, assuming he's the same age as the other kids. You can't penalize him for it. He's legally impeding the guard, without making contact. So no foul.

However, I think many of us will agree that we hate to see the winning team continue to press in a blowout.

Chuck

hawkk · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 09:39am

Quote:

Originally posted by Troward
NFHS: The bigger kid was faster so there was never really any contact . . . .

Obviously, if there's no contact, there's no foul. Defender can have his arms anywhere he wants so long as he doesn't touch. (Kinda like a moving screen.) Until PG tries to move, and the arms make contact, how would you have a foul? Intimidation by being big is not a foul.

RecRef · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 09:45am

Quote:

Originally posted by Troward
NFHS: parallel to the ground like Frankenstien. The bigger kid was faster so there was never really any contact but the PG could not get out from in between his arms.Is there any "impeeding" foul in this scenario?thanks
GTW

Impeding foul, no such thing, unless you count a block as it. What you have here is a holding situation if the PG makes any contact with Frankensteins arms while he has them around guard like you describe.

Troward · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 10:02am

so if there is any contact between the defender's long arms and the smaller player it would be a foul?

The Frankenstein's arms probably did bump the smaller player as he tried to get free, but as they bumped he would move his arms away instantly.
The contact was kind of like a defender "feeling" where the offender is with his hands but he never grabbed him. A defender almost always "feels" for the offensive player when a cutter is on the move, it is not a foul unless he bumps or holds him to gain an advantage, right? In my case The contact itself was very slight and would not warrant a foul unless you consider the cumulative effect of the contact and the way he was using his arms seemed to gain an advantage. Is this advantage fair or unfair I guess is the question?

GTW

Hawks Coach · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 11:06am

If he is extending his arms and the point guard is trying to get by but getting bumped all the time, you could have a hand check, a hold, or a push on the defense, depending on how you are seeing it. But if there is contact that is preventing the PG from operating normally, you need to decide if it is enough to warrant a foul. Sounds like it might have been, but you have to see it.

Rule 4, SECTION 19 FOUL
ART. 1 . . . A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements.

Rule 10, SECTION 6 CONTACT
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee

It sounds to me like the criteria for a foul was met if contact was made and it impeded the PG.

RecRef · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 11:23am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Troward
>so if there is any contact between the defender's long arms and the smaller player it would be a foul?

In this case I would have to say yes as you do not have a Legal Guarding Position here. To me it is in the same ballpark as the defender making a cross with his arms out from the sides of his trunk. If there is contact it is a block in this example.

>The Frankenstein's arms probably did bump the smaller player as he tried to get free, but as they bumped he would move his arms away instantly.
The contact was kind of like a defender "feeling" where the offender is with his hands but he never grabbed him. A defender almost always "feels" for the offensive player when a cutter is on the move, it is not a foul unless he bumps or holds him to gain an advantage, right?

Wrong, think hand check or think riding the dribbler by keeping him from his line.

>In my case The contact itself was very slight and would not warrant a foul unless you consider the cumulative effect of the contact and the way he was using his arms seemed to gain an advantage. Is this advantage fair or unfair I guess is the question?
GTW

Slight or not, has nothing to do with it for me. He is using his arms in a non legal manner to impede the progress of the dribbler. I would call this just as I call B1 for putting his arms back to keep A1 from going around him as they are setup inside or outside of the lane, with contact.

DownTownTonyBrown · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 01:28pm

Correct. Frankenstein is not entitled to the area under his arms or the width of his wingspan. He is entitled to the space where his feet are. Any contact outside of his feet would be a hold. All the dribbler, PG, needed to do was dribble into his arms. Any resistance in the arms should have been called a foul/hold.

The second time you call it the coach will either be explaining it or the kid will be fouled out soon. And then you can get back to basketball.

Troward · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 02:10pm

this scenario is occuring durring the inbounds play, while the thrower in is attempting to get the ball to the PG. The PG does not have the ball yet so I don't think we apply the concepts of hand checking or riding the dribbler, right?

MN 3 Sport Ref · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 02:36pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Troward
this scenario is occuring durring the inbounds play, while the thrower in is attempting to get the ball to the PG. The PG does not have the ball yet so I don't think we apply the concepts of hand checking or riding the dribbler, right?

It is still a block or a hold if he is obstructing the players movement as IMO in this case he is. He is entitled to his position in a vertical manner not a horizontal one. Obviously he must have to move to continue to "corral" the kid. If not the PG needs to have the brain cells to move to get open.

williebfree · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 02:53pm

I do not have my rulebook, but I am certian that "Frankenstien" is NOT in a legal guarding position. (See rulebook for specific description

)

As mentioned earlier, we should call him for a hold if contact occurs.

Hawks Coach · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 02:57pm

I think that there is a little more contact allowed off the ball than on the ball. Slight contact that the PG can play through can be let go. Obstructing movement cannot be let go, because you would be allowing illegal contact to give the defense an advantage. You have to call it how you see it.

RecRef · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 03:05pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Troward
this scenario is occuring durring the inbounds play, while the thrower in is attempting to get the ball to the PG. The PG does not have the ball yet so I don't think we apply the concepts of hand checking or riding the dribbler, right?

Frank is in the wrong. You can not use your arms like this to block an opponent.

And the down side in this is your following statement," Towards the end the PG was frustrated and pushed this kids arms down to get free which obviously is a foul on him, but his team was getting blown out and it didn't seem appropriate that they were still be pressing."

You allowed the situation to run out of control until the PG had to resort to a violent move to clear the arms. Lucky for you that this was not a varsity game or there could have been flying fist.

And yes, you can have a hand check/push on a player without the ball. Please take the time to read the casebook and the POE on rough play in the rules book.

Hawks Coach · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 03:19pm

I have never seen "hand check" used except with respect to a dribbler, in rule or case. I think that you can have a hold or a push off the ball, not a hand check. A foul nonetheless, but I think that people may have issues if they try to call a hand check off the ball.

RecRef · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 22, 2003, 03:53pm

You could be right coach (are coaches ever correct

) What I hang my hat on is 10.6.1a in the case book. "The principles which apply to guarding a player who has the ball apply equally to guarding a player who does not have the ball..." So, if that is equal than the call should be the same.

Maybe a push would be a better call. Hard to sell a one hand hold.