NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I just saw this thread now, and this was my exact thought.

Setting a screen with elbows high and wide is not a legal position, so any contact on those elbows is illegal. This is similar to a defensive player who takes a stationary position with one foot on an out-of-bounds boundary line. The position is not legal, so any contact that occurs is illegal contact caused by the defender.

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.

[Rob1968]

9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

According to 4-40-7, a player with the ball can be considered to be a screener. I would say in this situation A1 could be charged with an illegal screen.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

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.

[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 adam

+1

-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 rwest

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.

If you want to call this so literally, why are you not calling a violation for the defender leaving the court for an unauthorized reason???

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you want to call this so literally, why are you not calling a violation for the defender leaving the court for an unauthorized reason???

For the same reason we don't call a violation when a defender loses their balance and steps out of bounds. They didn't intend to step out of bounds. Intent is required. In most cases they probably didn't realize they were out of bounds.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

For the same reason we don't call a violation when a defender loses their balance and steps out of bounds. They didn't intend to step out of bounds. Intent is required. In most cases they probably didn't realize they were out of bounds.

Are you sure about that? How can you tell? When they created the case play in question, it was precisely targeted at defenders stepping OOB on purpose.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

I think the important thing to remember in the "defense with one foot OB" situations is that it should be treated - in some cases - similarly to the restricted area in NCAA rules. The rules and cases are there for ruling on block/charge calls. But it doesn't mean it's open season on that B player.

(Also, I just skimmed on the way here, so if this is not at all relevant, please disregard. )