NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Depends. It could be a foul on either. It could either be a screen that is called against A1 or it could be a foul on B2 for contacting the ball handler's arm. Unless it was a clear attempt to use the elbow to set a screen, I'm most likely going with the defensive foul. If you don't you'll have defenders running into the ball handler's arms all night trying to get the illegal screen call.

Agreed. It could also be incidental contact.

Most of the time, a player only chins the ball when a defensive player is tring to swat at it. So, the chances of having a different defensive player run into the elbow are pretty slim, I would think.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is not correct. The OOB player can't have LGP, that is all. The rule doesn't come anywhere near declaring that they are liable for all contact by being OOB, just that they can't be guarding. It doesn't become open season for an opponent to run into them if they see they happen to be touching OOB but are not actively guarding.

The case play that some like to cite to support your claim involves a player actively guarding the opponent...meaning the player was moving to maintain LGP but loses it by stepping OOB. It doesn't support your claim at all.

There is nothing in the case play that indicates that player is moving. This is an assumption made by some based on the reasoning that the play involves guarding a player. However, you can be stationary and be actively guarding a player. So the assumption is wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

There is nothing in the case play that indicates that player is moving. This is an assumption made by some based on the reasoning that the play involves guarding a player. However, you can be stationary and be actively guarding a player. So the assumption is wrong.

It is the context. The case is under legal guarding position. If a player isn't moving, they don't need legal guarding position.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by camron rust

it is the context. The case is under legal guarding position. If a player isn't moving, they don't need legal guarding position.

+1

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is the context. The case is under legal guarding position. If a player isn't moving, they don't need legal guarding position.

The FED does not want a defender to be able to straddle the sideline or end line to cut off the offense. That's why they came up with the case play several years ago. They figured we don't allow the offense to run out of bounds so we can't allow the defense to set up out of bounds. The context is not as clear as you seem to think. At least not in my mind. LGP can start with a stationary player. LGP allows them to move to maintain it as long as the do so legally. Moving to have one foot out of bounds is not a legal defense and is not maintaining legal guarding position. If they can't be moving with one foot out of bounds why can they move to a stationary position with one foot out of bounds? Just because a defender is stationary does not mean he is legal. There are other rules that come into play. And I made the same argument you made about it being open season on defenders when this new ruling came out. Our VP of training said that straddling the line is not legal.

And before someone makes the argument about a stationary player with his back to the offense that never had LGP, the answer to that is that everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor as long as they got there legally. Also provided that spot is on the floor. Not out of bounds on live ball action.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mendy Trent

While I understand your point, I don't think it makes sense to forget about who caused contact. Almost all fouls are committed by causing illegal contact. Even in the scenario you cite, the extended elbow causes the contact which creates the foul.

"Cause" is a positive action as it is commonly used in the realm of basketball. As such, the elbow in your example didn't cause the contact...it was just there. The other player caused contact by moving into it. It just happens that the reason it is a foul is that the elbow was not in a legal position when contact occurred.

Shooters cause contact all the time when they catch a defender out of position....maybe the arms are not vertical and the shooter ensures they cause contact in hopes of getting a foul (sometimes deserved, sometimes not).

[Mendy Trent]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

"Cause" is a positive action as it is commonly used in the realm of basketball. As such, the elbow in your example didn't cause the contact...it was just there. The other player caused contact by moving into it. It just happens that the reason it is a foul is that the elbow was not in a legal position when contact occurred.

Shooter cause contact all the time when they catch a defender out of position....maybe the arms are not vertical and the shooter ensures they cause contact in hopes of getting a foul (sometimes deserved, sometimes not).

I think we are in agreement other than semantics.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mendy Trent

I think we are in agreement other than semantics.

Who is this semantics guy who disagrees with us? Maybe he needs some clarification.

[Adam]

I think the next question is whether the semantics matter. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Here, I would lean towards saying they do.