When is a tap a tap

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If you judge it to be a try, then yes.

(No one would really do this, so that's why 4-41-5 says "hands")

In all seriousness, would anyone consider this a try?

I mentioned the prohibition against using a fist to punch the ball, and with 4-41-5 refering to "hands", I would have a hard time finding a justification for calling this a try and allowing the ball to remain live after the horn.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

In all seriousness, would anyone consider this a try?

If the player is "attempting to score" then I'm considering it a try.

As I said before, as a practical matter, it's not going to happen. If there's only .3 left, then the ball will be thrown and contacted up high. If there's more than .3 left, then the player will attempt to catch the ball as opposed to "bumping" the ball.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the player is "attempting to score" then I'm considering it a try.

As I said before, as a practical matter, it's not going to happen. If there's only .3 left, then the ball will be thrown and contacted up high. If there's more than .3 left, then the player will attempt to catch the ball as opposed to "bumping" the ball.

May be impractical, (although I've seen discussion of more far-fetched scenarios here), but it could come into play at the end of a game in terms of whether or not the ball is dead on the horn or whether or not the ball remains live during the try for goal.

Do you draw the line anywhere in terms of what body part is used to "attempt to score". If the volleyball forearm bump could be considered an attempt to score, then it seems like you are including "arms" as a body part that could be
considered acceptable for a "tap" in an attempt to score.
What about a soccer style "header" an attempt to score?

I'm inclined to stick with the strict interpretation of the definition of a tap that required "hands". But I was curious what others think.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

May be impractical, (although I've seen discussion of more far-fetched scenarios here), but it could come into play at the end of a game in terms of whether or not the ball is dead on the horn or whether or not the ball remains live during the try for goal.

Do you draw the line anywhere in terms of what body part is used to "attempt to score". If the volleyball forearm bump could be considered an attempt to score, then it seems like you are including "arms" as a body part that could be
considered acceptable for a "tap" in an attempt to score.
What about a soccer style "header" an attempt to score?

I'm inclined to stick with the strict interpretation of the definition of a tap that required "hands". But I was curious what others think.

I would include arms. I would include head. If I thought it was an attempt to direct the ball toward the basket, on purpose, it's a try.

[RulesGeek]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I would include arms. I would include head. If I thought it was an attempt to direct the ball toward the basket, on purpose, it's a try.

The rule defines a tap as contacting the ball with "hand(s)." So if it hits the forarms or head, it is not a tap and the ball is dead on the horn. However, if the player strikes the ball with the HANDS held together in "volleyball bump position" that is a tap, and the goal counts even after the horn.

I've actually wondered before why I've never heard of a team trying a "volleyball shot" when down by 3 with 0.3 or less on the clock. I've especially wondered it at the HS/NCAA women levels where it is likely that there is at least one experienced volleyball player on the squad. Sure its an unlikely shot.... but with a skilled volleyballer I think the odds are better than a lob into the paint-made tap-foul combination.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RulesGeek

The rule defines a tap as contacting the ball with "hand(s)."

Agreed with the literal wording of the rule. the question is, did they really mean just the hand(s), or did they word it that way because that's what happens 99.9999999% of the time and what they were envisioning when they were writing it.

I get that some would be literal. I respect that opinion. I often choose the literal wording myself.

In this instance, I choose not to be. As long as it's not a kick, it's a tap, to me.

[RulesGeek]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed with the literal wording of the rule. the question is, did they really mean just the hand(s), or did they word it that way because that's what happens 99.9999999% of the time and what they were envisioning when they were writing it.

I get that some would be literal. I respect that opinion. I often choose the literal wording myself.

In this instance, I choose not to be. As long as it's not a kick, it's a tap, to me.

Maybe I can see extending it to the forearms.... but on a head ball now you will also need to also determine whether it was an intentional tap (live ball) or just rebounded off a head (dead at the horn). Opens up too many "ifs" and just too slippery a slope for me.

In addition, the powers that be seem to believe that basketball is played with the hands. So for me to call it an intentional tap (or try) and keep the ball alive, I will need the player to use his/her hands.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed with the literal wording of the rule. the question is, did they really mean just the hand(s), or did they word it that way because that's what happens 99.9999999% of the time and what they were envisioning when they were writing it.

I get that some would be literal. I respect that opinion. I often choose the literal wording myself.

In this instance, I choose not to be. As long as it's not a kick, it's a tap, to me.

I agree, but I wouldn't be surprised if the fed issued an interp indicating "basketball is meant to be played by the hands...."

[bob jenkins]

I've had games where one of the players had only one hand. If s/he "tapped" the ball with the stub (a)below the elbow (b) at the end of the upper arm "stub" -- would you allow it?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I've had games where one of the players had only one hand. If s/he "tapped" the ball with the stub (a)below the elbow (b) at the end of the upper arm "stub" -- would you allow it?

Is this Padgett?

[RulesGeek]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I've had games where one of the players had only one hand. If s/he "tapped" the ball with the stub (a)below the elbow (b) at the end of the upper arm "stub" -- would you allow it?

Wow... way to turn me into an insensitive jerk.... and you really like messing with us literal folks, huh?

Here's how I call it (at least until fed publishes a clarification): the end of the arm is the hand. Why? (1) because I don't know what else to call the end of the arm, but more importantly, (2) because I have known a few folks with this disability and they did at times use the end of the arm to steady or balance objects in place of the hand. The could not grasp of course, but this play actually prohibits grasping. The "push" involved in the tap, if accomplished by the end of the arm, is done the same way with or without a hand and is legal in my book. If accomplished by the shaft of the arm, it is illegal just as it would be by a player without any disability.

And this is regardless of whether the arm ends above or below the elbow.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RulesGeek

Wow... way to turn me into an insensitive jerk.... and you really like messing with us literal folks, huh?.

Not at all my intention, and not the way I wrote it.

[RulesGeek]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Not at all my intention, and not the way I wrote it.

Not really the way I took it either.
But I do enjoy a good challenge.