|
If I'm not mistaken, the thread established that A's contact was neither flagrant nor intentional. There was no swinging, there was no punching, nor did A push B intentionally. Once A is airborne he cannot alter his momentum nor change where he will land. B did not get legal guarding position and by defintion he is responsible for causing illegal contact. See Point of Emphasis on page 71 of Rule book. It gives criteria for determining block/charge (subheading E).
Point 1. Addresses two factors.
a.Who was at the spot first? ANS. A
b.Was the guard FACING the player with the ball
with two feet on the playing court? ( this is
the same as asking did the guard have legal
Guarding position?) ANS. NO
Therefore B initated the contact. Reading further on page 71 in Point 4. Contact initiated by the defense (on or off the ball) that involves lower body, non-vertical contact and defending a perimeter player or AN AIRBORNE PLAYER, should be "BLOCK."
In my opinion, the mere fact that while airborne A's arm/elbow contacted B that was incidental therefore ignored. Rule 10.6.1 makes it possible for either player to have arms is a position to afford him protection or to absorb the force of contact. Charge B with Blocking foul and shoot appropriate free throws.
But. Let's assume for the sake of argument that A could try for goal (concentrating on judging proper distance/arc needed to be sucessful) with his right hand and at the same time with his left hand punch or swing at a defender occupying an illegal space on the floor. (This is hard for me to believe. In 25 years of officiating and 18 years of evaluating Division 1 officials have I ever seen this happen to be called)
B is still guilty of a block. Nothing A does can exonerate B if he was responsible for the contact. B is guilty of a personal foul. Charge A with a flagrant personal foul and eject. This is a double foul. No free throws, AP throw in.
So, given the play as described by OC in original post and even given the scenario by RookieDude, by definition A still is not charged with a player control foul in either case.
[Edited by Daryl H. Long on May 24th, 2004 at 01:54 AM]
|