Video: Euro step, Gasol move ? Make the call

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Basically, you're saying the forearm that is legal is one that is held in contact with the defender's own body...as it must be to be within their frame. In that case, they're not using the forearm. If they've extended in any other position and contact occurs, it is not in a legal position.

The whole purpose of the arm bar is to impede the progress of an opponent. It has no other purpose. To say otherwise is simply silly. You can certainly argue whether the advantage it provides should be a foul or not, but you can't honestly say it doesn't impede the opponent or give the defender an advantage.

That might be the purpose, but not always is the purpose mean there is proper execution. It is just why you do not call a foul for touching. When it causes an advantage, then it is a foul and I agree with APG totally on this issue.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Basically, you're saying the forearm that is legal is one that is held in contact with the defender's own body...as it must be to be within their frame. In that case, they're not using the forearm. If they've extended in any other position and contact occurs, it is not in a legal position.

The whole purpose of the arm bar is to impede the progress of an opponent. It has no other purpose. To say otherwise is simply silly. You can certainly argue whether the advantage it provides should be a foul or not, but you can't honestly say it doesn't impede the opponent or give the defender an advantage.

I agree, but I also think there is no legitimate reason for a defender to "measure up" a ball handler. No one on the court is blind, so there's no need to use the hands to determine distance.

Frankly, I think some leagues prefer a zero-tolerance policy on the arm bar for the same reason they ask for it on a hand-check; it's difficult to tell whether the contact impedes the offensive player or merely discourages him to try.

[Adam]

Okay, I finally got my computer back up (wiped and restored), so I could watch the video.

Play 1. I can't tell from my angle when he gathers, but it looks from my view that it'sl close. I can't see making that call in live play.

Play 2. I would have got that on a pivot after a jump stop.

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Basically, you're saying the forearm that is legal is one that is held in contact with the defender's own body...as it must be to be within their frame. In that case, they're not using the forearm. If they've extended in any other position and contact occurs, it is not in a legal position.

The whole purpose of the arm bar is to impede the progress of an opponent. It has no other purpose. To say otherwise is simply silly. You can certainly argue whether the advantage it provides should be a foul or not, but you can't honestly say it doesn't impede the opponent or give the defender an advantage.

The forearm that is collapsed is legal. Therefore in many situations the arm bar is considered incidental.

Both offense and defense utilize the arm bar at various times. Therefore we have to determine if the contact is illegal. Your statement implies that the defense only uses the arm bar.

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree, but I also think there is no legitimate reason for a defender to "measure up" a ball handler. No one on the court is blind, so there's no need to use the hands to determine distance.

Frankly, I think some leagues prefer a zero-tolerance policy on the arm bar for the same reason they ask for it on a hand-check; it's difficult to tell whether the contact impedes the offensive player or merely discourages him to try.

simply touching a player to measure up is not illegal

if you cannot tell if the contact impedes play, you cannot call it. it would be considered incidental contact.

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why do defenders want to use it if it is not an advantage?

sometimes the defense uses the arm bar to cushion against contact created by the offense. we all know that the offense doesn't always try to avoid contact and the defense is allowed to protect against contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

simply touching a player to measure up is not illegal

if you cannot tell if the contact impedes play, you cannot call it. it would be considered incidental contact.

I'm aware of the first sentence, but the second is simply not true. Most levels that I'm aware of want the hand check called if contact is prolonged, not just if the advantage is obvious. It's pretty dammed easy for a defender, if he's allowed to keep his hand on the dribbler, to subtly change his direction in ways that drastically and negatively affect the offense.

My point with regard to "measuring up" is that it's stupid and not necessary. Why in the world would you need to use your hands to figure out how far you are from a player you an see? Yet I know it's allowed, so I don't call it unless the hand stays on the dribbler.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm aware of the first sentence, but the second is simply not true. Most levels that I'm aware of want the hand check called if contact is prolonged, not just if the advantage is obvious. It's pretty dammed easy for a defender, if he's allowed to keep his hand on the dribbler, to subtly change his direction in ways that drastically and negatively affect the offense.

My point with regard to "measuring up" is that it's stupid and not necessary. Why in the world would you need to use your hands to figure out how far you are from a player you an see? Yet I know it's allowed, so I don't call it unless the hand stays on the dribbler.

This is why we get paid the big bucks. I am at least recognizing that this might be used and I may not call a foul the insistence this happens. Does that mean that I will not likely end up calling a foul? Of course it is probably going to be a foul, but I see times when this takes place and I try to wait for some advantage to stand out. I am much more likely to call a foul with the ball handler than I would be a post player as often players at least try to put hands on each other at some point during post play.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is why we get paid the big bucks. I am at least recognizing that this might be used and I may not call a foul the insistence this happens. Does that mean that I will not likely end up calling a foul? Of course it is probably going to be a foul, but I see times when this takes place and I try to wait for some advantage to stand out. I am much more likely to call a foul with the ball handler than I would be a post player as often players at least try to put hands on each other at some point during post play.

Peace

I agree with this. I just think it's silly to want a zero-tolerance on them (hand check and arm bar) but still allow the "measure up" touch.

And I also think that failure to adjust to this lies with the players. Not just Chandler, either, as Marc Gasol had a major issue with this in the final game.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not convinced the first play is a travel. For one the issue is when did the player gather the ball to stop his dribble. I think the first one is possibly legal. The second one is obviously a travel as the move is a hop step after establishing the ball and pivot foot while in control of the ball.

Peace

Same here...not conviced first move is illegal. Dribble ends and left foot is pivot, then steps through and jumps off right foot. This is an awkward movement since it sets up a left handed try. Yet, the shooter ends up releasing a right handed try. Awkward looking for sure. Illegal? Not so sure. We have awkward looking plays in youth ball all the time that cause fans to scream "travel" or "foul". We often know better. This may be one of those awkward movements that is, in fact legal.

The second is obvious - both feet initially land with ball in hands, then both feet move before the dribble (ball is pushed to ground) begins. Traveling.

[APG]

Originally Posted by DLH17

The second is obvious - both feet initially land with ball in hands, then both feet move before the dribble (ball is pushed to ground) begins. Traveling.

I think most people are talking about the move at the end of the dribble rather than to begin the dribble. In real time speed, I'd venture to guess it wouldn't be called 95/100 times.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think most people are talking about the move at the end of the dribble rather than to begin the dribble. In real time speed, I'd venture to guess it wouldn't be called 95/100 times.

Agreed. I saw the first move, but it was so slight, I'm not sure that gets called regularly at any level.

[7IronRef]

simply touching a player to measure up is not illegal

if you cannot tell if the contact impedes play, you cannot call it. it would be considered incidental contact.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm aware of the first sentence, but the second is simply not true. Most levels that I'm aware of want the hand check called if contact is prolonged, not just if the advantage is obvious. It's pretty dammed easy for a defender, if he's allowed to keep his hand on the dribbler, to subtly change his direction in ways that drastically and negatively affect the offense.

Sounds like you are guessing on whether or not contact is impeding a players progress. If the defense is not impeding the progress of the dribbler, then what is the foul?

When the offense initiates contact most defenders will place a forearm between the two bodies to absorb contact. You are saying that the defense is now responsible for the contact? It is part of the normal movement of players during the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

simply touching a player to measure up is not illegal

I know this. I've said this. Why do you need to repeat it?

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Sounds like you are guessing on whether or not contact is impeding a players progress. If the defense is not impeding the progress of the dribbler, then what is the foul?

Sounds like you're completely misreading what I'm writing. I can live with that.