Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
I am a devotee of the idea that, if there's contact between a dribbler and defender, and something happened that had a material effect, then something probably happened.
That being said, here's something that happens not infrequently that I thinks slips between the cracks of the rules. It's not covered in the casebook, to my knowledge - if it is, I'd be happy to hear about it.
Defender B1 is standing still and has legal guarding position on dribbler A1. A1 moves to go around B1, gets head and shoulders past B1, but, in going around, trips on B1's foot. Disadvantage A1.
Player control, disadvantage, this is not the stuff of the (illusive, often scoundrelly) 'good no-call'. Yet, in this one, highly defined circumstance, I find I see it that way. I'm not about to call a player control foul; and I'm not about to call a block on a player who has legal guarding position and is standing still. For the rationale oriented . . . how about this: "yes, head and shoulders were past the defender, but the defender's foot was at his/her shoulder's width . . . thus contact was actually within shoulder-to-shoulder."
|
See the definition of a foul in rule 4-19-1. It states that a foul is
illegal contact. If you judge any contact to be legal, there simply ain't a foul. Also see rule 4-27-
"Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does NOT constitute a foul". The articles of that particular section add further explanation of what incidental contact is.
A good example, and one that is very close to your play, is case book play 10.6.1SitE. In that one, the defender is one on the floor and the dribbler contacted him, lost control and fell. The ruling is that no infraction or foul has occurred and play continues.
Iow, the rules
cover the cracks. That help you out?