ball, not elbow

[APG]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

This question has come up before ... can probably search threads to find the discussion. There's a video floating around too from an NBA game where Tim Duncan gets someone in the face with the ball on a drive.

[BillyMac]

My NFHS opinion.

It can't be a personal foul, because there was no person to person contact between the swinger, and the opponent.

So, if it's a foul, it has to be a non-contact, live ball, technical foul for "Commit(ting) an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as ...".

Or, it's nothing.

[bob jenkins]

If there's a foul, I'm going with a personal foul.

No, I probably can't "prove it" using the literal rules.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If there's a foul, I'm going with a personal foul.

No, I probably can't "prove it" using the literal rules.

And that's because being struck by the ball is nothing.
This is a legal play and the official shouldn't do anything other than consider stopping the game for an injured player.

[referee99]

if the hand is, by rule, part of the ball, would the reverse be true?
also, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it...

[JRutledge]

This play with Duncan and Birdman is nothing. It is incidental at best and nothing malicious taking place. If anything it would be a T if Duncan tried to hit him or use the ball to create some kind of space. That did not take place here, so I would let it go if I clearly saw this action. And I have and passed on it when I have seen this play before.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by referee99

if the hand is, by rule, part of the ball, would the reverse be true?
also, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it...

It is not part of the ball. That's not what the rule says.

Originally Posted by Adam

It is not part of the ball. That's not what the rule says.

Eh, it's one of those colloquialisms that isn't too far off. For the uninformed, here's the rule:

NFHS 4-24-2

"It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I've only ever seen "hand is part of the ball" mentioned within the context of the hand being on the ball. Could you point out an instance on The Forum when it was used improperly out of context?

Sure.

Originally Posted by referee99

if the hand is, by rule, part of the ball, would the reverse be true?
also, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it...