Video: Euro step, Gasol move ? Make the call

[7IronRef]

the forearm/arm bar is not illegal unless used to guide or impede the progress of a dribbler.

use of forearm on dribbler as long as it is collapsed (not extended) is legal as it is within the frame of the body while performing normal defensive movement and is not initiating the contact

[APG]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

the forearm/arm bar is not illegal unless used to guide or impede the progress of a dribbler.

use of forearm on dribbler as long as it is collapsed (not extended) is legal as it is within the frame of the body while performing normal defensive movement and is not initiating the contact

You've worded it better than I and this is what I'd look for in trying to determine if there's been an advantage gained.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

the forearm/arm bar is not illegal unless used to guide or impede the progress of a dribbler.

use of forearm on dribbler as long as it is collapsed (not extended) is legal as it is within the frame of the body while performing normal defensive movement and is not initiating the contact

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.