[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...KIXWlYTguj.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This should have been ruled a foul.

In this play, two players are running after a loose ball in an attempt to gain possession of the ball. Blue #22 dives onto the floor and slightly contacts White #3 in the process.

What impact did this contact have on White #3? To answer this question, watch the play again from the perspective of White #3 and try to imagine what the play would have looked like if the contact had not occurred. Would White #3 have had a better chance of starting a dribble and maintaining control of the ball? Would White #3 have ended up on the floor? Which team do you think would have ended up with possession of the ball?

Loose ball contact continues to be an area of concern.Far too often, officials are making these rulings based on the severity of contact. Many officials view slight contact as insignificant and incorrectly rule it to be legal. The incidental contact rule (Rule 4-27) is one of the most important rules for any official to master. Few officials ascend to higher levels of play without mastering this concept. But, rules astute officials know that the severity of contact has little to do in determining if contact is illegal or incidental.

So how do we decide? This determination comes down to one basic concept, freedom of movement. The only question officials need to ask themselves is, “What impact did the contact have on the opponent?” If contact did not inhibit an opponent’s freedom of movement, the contact is incidental and should be ruled legal. But, if freedom of movement is inhibited, it must be ruled a foul.

How do we know if a player has been inhibited? When contact impacts the player's Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness (RSBQ), the player has been inhibited, and the contact should be ruled a foul.

In this play, it appears White #3 has a reasonable chance to start a dribble and possibly maintain possession for his team until the contact occurred. It appears he had no intention of going to the floor and only ended up on the floor due to the contact of Blue #3. This contact (even though it was slight) inhibited his freedom of movement or RSBQ; therefore, it should have been ruled a foul.

When making this type of ruling, officials will undoubtedly hear, “but he was just going for the ball!” Our game's contact rules are not ignored just because a player is attempting to gain possession of the ball. In all facets of our game, contact rulings should be based on freedom of movement.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video (only two choices): Incidental contact 75% (including me); Foul 25% .