Quote:
Originally posted by rwest
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ
A player violently tomahawks the hand which is on the ball so that it breaks his hand? Good no call?
|
I'm not sure that everyone understands the purpose and intent of this particular rule. What the rulesmakers are telling us is that it's legal for a defender to contact the part of the opponent's hand that's in contact with the ball as long as that contact is incidental to an attempt to play the ball. Iow, this is a judgement call on the official's part. If we think that the "tomahawk" and subsequent contact on the hand on the ball was part of a legitimate block attempt, then by rule it's not a foul. If you feel that the "tomahawk" wasn't a legitimate try to make a block but was only done to prevent a layup, then if there was contact on the hand on the ball, you could call a foul.
|
So, in other words JR, you are suggesting that we can officiate outside the black letter of the law if we believe the intent of the rule has been violated. As you said, that's up to the referee's judgement. I don't believe it is a stretch to say that a violent block from behind violates the intent of the rule, even if it does not violate the strict letter of the law.
|
Nope, I'm suggesting that you read R10-6-1. That tells you what the FED's take on contact is. The black letter of the law says that a defender contacting an opponent's hand while it is on the ball may or may not be a foul. Casebook play 4-19-3SitB gives you good direction too on a legal block followed by contact.
I am saying that a violent block on the ball that is not accompanied by physical contact of any kind is NOT a foul, and it NEVER was the purpose and intent of any rule to allow a personal foul to ever be called without any actual physical contact being present. Iow, your "stretch" has no basis under any existing rule or practise that I know of.