Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Here's my two sheckels worth. NF 10.6.1 is the section on contact and it defines what contact fouls are. The first sentence does state that a player can be called for a foul for using "rough tactics." That's the only part of the section that might support a foul call if B1 pushes on the ball hard enough to make A1 fall backwards. The rest of the section specifically mentions that contact must be made with an opponent, which is not what happens when you push the ball (and don't give me that "hand is part of the ball stuff - it's specifically addressed in the section and it doesn't state the opposite, i.e.: the ball is part of the hand).
In fact the first part of the first sentence also specifically mentions that contact must be made with an opponent to cause a foul (another section deals with non-contact fouls) and the part about "rough tactics" is at the end of that same sentence following a semi-colon, so you could also make an opposite case that the "rough tactics" phrase also pertains to contact with an opponent.
Having said all that, I guess I feel this way: if B1 legitimately pushes on the ball to try to block a shot or pass, it's no foul. If he hits or punches the ball with such force that it's obvious the act was intended to knock A1 down (and this would be a very difficult thing to assess), then you could have a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct (non-contact foul during a live ball). Yeah, I know the second part is a real stretch, and the act would have to be incredibly overt and I would probably never call it - in fact, I haven't in 22 years.
That's why I think that I would always call the travel, unless you had a clean block first, in which case it would be a held ball.
There - that's clear as mud.
|
Mark, you mention two things that are relevant to this play: rough tactics and the act was intended to knock down his opponent.
This play is easier to make a decision if we actually see it rather than read a description of the play. My gut feeling the first time I read the play was that B1 was intending to knock down A1, because if B1 was capable of putting his hands on the ball, he should have had the wherewithall to make an attempt to grab at the ball and continue going after the ball.
I agree that we cannot use the hand is part of the ball definition, but in the play described your mention of rough tactics and the intention to knock down his opponent would fit the description of a pushing foul.