B1 is standing in the lane, not moving with his bent arms up. He does not move. A1 drives in the lane and his shooting hand brushes across the hans/arm that has not moved
My partner in the lead blows and calls a foul on B1. I'm in the trail.
I discussed this with him at half time. He said this is clearly a foul on B1. I agreed it was not a charge- but for me this was Incidental contact- no call. He agreed that the hand/arm/ body did not move.

So is the call
on A1
on B1
no call

Stew in Virginia
CVBOA
http://www.crboa.org Yes we have a web site now! Great going Central Virginia!

Advantage/Disadvantage. I would not call this foul unless there was enough contact to give B1 an advantage and that does not seem to be the case. My Opinion: No Call!

Wouldn't the principle of verticality apply here? I guess the situation would depend on how far B1 had his arms extended away from his body...moving or not.

Dave

Yes, this was really my question. The arms were not vertical- just slightly bent (Like ho most players keep thier hands up on a passive zone defense. There was no movement from the defense. A1 just moved very rapidly through the lane.
Stew

If the arms/hands were not within the defender's vertical plane, it would be a foul if the offensive player was placed at a disadvantage.

Yes the offensive player was placed at a disadvantage. It just looks strange when the defense is standing in a spot- not moving (very passive) offensive comes driving down the lane- avoids the charge and brushes against the hands and arms- Hey that is why I'm a rookie- still learning and asking questions from every partner, Big Brother, Forum and the rule book I can find
Stew

Imagine that his arms were extended straight out, like a 60 second timeout signal. Would that be a foul if the same thing happened? I would think so. If his arms are in the poisition you originally described, you just have to judge whether he was within his vertical plane or not and if there is a disadvantage.

Simple, eh? :)

Yes very simple thanks! Hands and arms are eiher Vertical or not. (Ref the Defense) If not was the offense at a disadvantage
SO to answer my own question- Defense not legal Arms not vertical- offense at at disavantage because of the illegal defense- foul on B1- partner got it right
Stewart

Agreed.
You gonna call it?
I hafta see it.

Gotta see it, too, to make that judgment. But I have called it. It's no different than a player who has arms straight up and then moves them over the shooter, who makes contact when he/she goes up. Tweet! Foul.

YU.P., I was thinking that too.
I just don't like bailng a shooter out that's forcing contact on a defender. ;)

If B1's arms were in the vertical plane...nothing. Even if the contact with A1's arm was severe, there is no foul on B1. B1 was in a textbook legal guarding position. You may have a foul on A1, however.

On the point of verticality, it does NOT mean that the arms have to be <em>ruler</em> vertical, just generally up above the torso area.

Sounds good.
I think stewcall said "slightly bent".
(I suppose that could be judged "slightly" differently depending on which side of the table a guy was sitting.)

I agree. Again, if the arms aren't within the vertical plane, you can have a foul.

I agree with Mick
 

If we are A, it was clearly a foul - B1 needs to play proper defense. If we are B, that was one heck of a defensive play and A1 should be more careful :D