Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ignats75
Sorry, I don't buy it. I have a hard time seeing how a trailing player tripping an opponent is just incidental contact. Defender was at a disadvantage. Defender's action overcame that disadvantage with contact that created an advantage. That is not incidental contact.
4-27 is the definition of incidental contact. Art 2 only talks about unintentional contact on a loose ball or when both players are in equally favorable positions. I don't see how chasing the offensive player puts both in equally favorable positions.
Art 5 is the clincher however.
Sorry, I gotta side with the Nate on this one. Lead did swallow his whistle on that call as it was explained.
|
Actually, you are debating whether or not the contact WAS incidental. I'm not going to do that.
Nate used the words "incidental contact from behind" and implied that his partner wrongly believes this isn't a foul. I'm telling him that while he is busy criticizing his partner, he might want to go look up the definition of incidental contact because by rule it isn't a foul and his partner is correct to leave the gym believing that.
I didn't see the play. I can't make a judgment on it. All I can go by is the words of calling official, and I'm getting them secondhand. That official said that the two players got their feet tangled and that it wasn't worthy of a call. If my partner said those words to me, then that would be good enough for me. I certainly wouldn't come on an internet forum and trash him as Nate has been doing.
Who knows what really happened down there on the other end of the court from Nate? He certainly shouldn't. He had his own area and players to watch, but obviously he wasn't. Remember all we are getting is his side of it from probably at least 1/2 of the court away.