ball, not elbow

[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."

I had one of these "ball contact" plays recently. End of a pretty heated girls JV game (kill me now) and apparently I'm calling it quite differently that they are used to. Girl from home team is on a fast break, one defender. Offensive player gathers ball in midsection then runs into the defender who is slightly moving forward (illegal). The ball is sandwiched between their bodies for a split second and then their bodies go every different way. It would have been an easy blocking foul except for all of the contact being through the ball. Home coach goes nuts, despite one of his girls grabbing the loose ball and laying it in. I had a chance to talk to him after the game and we made up but it's a weird play you don't see that often. Perhaps I should have just called a foul.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by aremred

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."

10-6-2

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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."

The problem with it is exactly the sort of logical twisting that spurred my response. When people say it, they generally mean it's legal to hit the hand when it's on the ball; which is true. However, if you have someone who thinks the rule actually says it's considered to be a part of the ball, then you get someone who starts to do some reasonable logic and reaches the conclusion that hitting someone with the ball is a personal foul.

Originally Posted by Adam

The problem with it is exactly the sort of logical twisting that spurred my response. When people say it, they generally mean it's legal to hit the hand when it's on the ball; which is true. However, if you have someone who thinks the rule actually says it's considered to be a part of the ball, then you get someone who starts to do some reasonable logic and reaches the conclusion that hitting someone with the ball is a personal foul.

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?

[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...