BBALLBREAKDOWN: Is James Harden Breaking the NBA Rule Book?

Gibson's arm extension didn't cause the contact.....Harden's hook did.

 

I'm not arguing you are wrong, and I'm not necessarily agreeing with him. But that's not what he said. He said that if your arm is there BEFORE the offensive player, it has the right. What you quote seems to mean that you can't extend your arm WHEN the opponent is moving. It's not the same.

I remember coaches taught us when I was a kid that when you defend, you square up and have as wide a stance as you can move quickly. So you are supposed to spread wide with your legs and arms to make it more difficult for the opponent to get around you. For example, if you stand there with your arms spread before the opponent moves, and then the opponent runs into your arm, it not a foul on you. Maybe I have understood that wrong all these years.

 

Does that change the fact that Taj's arm isn't "considered to have a legal position in the path of an opponent"? Not only are you too lazy to read the rule book, you're too lazy to read the entire sentence I laid out there for you. Are you a Rockets fan or just some troll?

 

No use arguing with that guy. By his logic, if you hold your arms out and just stand there, your arms have a legal position to cause a barrier to the basket, and the dribbler or cutter must go around the defender's extended arms, and otherwise cannot create contact with your extended arm.

Gobert could create a 7'8" clothesline in the lane that Harden must dribble around, if he just knew the rules. And then if you linked two defenders together, you could create this defense .

 

The only option I've read in the rulebook is for refs to call that incidental contact. But then Harden shoots and takes that option out of the equation. The only real way to get around this is to play with your arms higher or lower. Harden usually gets these guys while they're not focused on him. If Taj was playing the right way, he'd move his body to make Harden go around him, but instead he looks at his man, has no idea what his arm is doing and Harden takes advantage of that. A good player wouldn't take their eye off Harden either, you can move that arm out of the way if you focus on him. Move with him, you know, but instead that keep their arms low, don't move their feet and get whistled for poor defense.

 

Yes Easy we get what he is arguing. But don's post linked the rulebook and it explicitly says offensive player can go wherever he wants and that the defender cannot extend arm in offensive players path. That's the rule. The man's argument holds no wait because an extended arm is not a legal position even if you stick it out before the offensive player drives. What Harden is doing is completely legal. And regardless if you believe in "CT" or not there is only 1 reason why they want to change the rule...

 

Ok, it looks like English isn't your first language so I'll break it down for you.

"A player who extends a hand, forearm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent and thereby causes contact is not considered to have a legal position in the path of an opponent."

First, let's simplify it.

A player who extends his forearm into the path of an opponent and thereby causes contact does not have legal position.

In that sentence, in order for the player to not have legal position, 2 conditions must be met:

1. forearm extended into opponent's path
2. forearm extension causes contact

In other words, if one of those conditions isn't met, then the position is legal. And the #2 condition isn't met. Gibson's arm extension doesn't cause the contact. The contact is caused by Harden's hook. Therefore, Gibson's arm extension is legal.

Also, ease up on the condescension. Going forward, I'll return it a hundred-fold.

 

I hate that you're right, but you are. I was hoping to get through to him. Hollic is smart, he's just being stubborn.

 

Nope, wrong again. I've been very clear on this issue. Gibson's arm was there first, and as long as Gibson is stationary, his arm is entitled to that space against opposing arms. Therefore, if Harden uses his arm to hook Gibson's arm (which is what happened) and dislodge him, that's a foul on Harden. However, if Harden uses his torso to run through Gibson's arm to dislodge him, that's a foul on Gibson.

 

He reads what he wants, that fit his confused logic, and discards the rest of the sentence and the established purpose of the sentence. In fairness, I don't think English is his first language, and he's fairly new to basketball. But in reality, I think he's just a contrarian troll, who likes to argue on semantics and such...and will always get the last word in.

Imagine him teaching kids to play bball. Hey kids,,,stick your arms out. If you do it before the offensive players dribbles to you or tries to cut without the ball, he can't cause contact with your arm, or it's a foul on him. Your arm has legal position when extended out.

 

Are you disagreeing with this statement

If you are standing in place, and hold your arms out, your arms have a legal position to cause a barrier to the basket, and the dribbler or cutter must go around the defender's extended arms, and otherwise cannot create contact with your extended arm.

Thus, if Gobert holds his arms out, no offensive players can break through his arms while dribbling or shooting or cutting through the lane. They have to go under his 7'8" wingspan arms

 

Disagree. The ball-handler can, using his body, run through the defender's extended arm and the foul is on the defender. However, the ball-handler cannot use his own hand/arm to dislodge the defender's extended arm. That would be an offensive foul.

 

Watch how he'll say my Gobert extended arms example is different. How that defense doesn't give the defenders extended arms legal position, even if Gobert is stationary.

 

The ball-handler, using his torso, can run through Gobert's extended arm and it'll be a foul on Gobert. However, if the ball-handler hooks Gobert's arm and dislodges it, it's an offensive foul on the ball-handler.

 

See how he is now saying Durant rip-through foul is also not a defense foul, because the defender's arm was extended first and he's stationary.

He also knows nothing about boxing out and cutting through the defense, where extended arms do not give you any legal advantage. You are not required to push through them with your body or neck (if at clothesline level), you can lead through them with you arms as part of your natural progress through that space, like a blocker in football with their arms. Hell I can show video of bball players swipes arms down out of their way, because they have no legal position.

He's just making up his own rules. Never played the game and is new to it...lulz that cutters can't push through arms with their arms too.

Much more fun talking around him.

 

Ignore lists were invented for guys like him. Ignore it and move on.

 

Durant's rip-through is a legit foul on the defense b/c the defender's hand is extended forward into Durant's personal space. See the difference? In the Gibson example, Gibson's arm isn't extended into Harden's personal space.

If the stationary defender's arm is extended, an offensive player is allowed to hook that arm and dislodge him.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

By your definition that'd be an offensive charge because you think Goberts arm is in legal position.

 

The rule says ANY contact made with defenders extended arm is an automatic foul not only if it were the torso. At no point is an extended arm in legal position unless it was vertical. With your kind of logic you should change your name to wacko...

 

It depends who initiates the contact.

If the stationary defender has his arm extended horizontally, the offensive player can't simply grab that defender's arm and yank him out of position.