|
Clearly the answer is not to encourage the kid to flop or to reward the flop. And how do we do that? By calling the foul when it happens.
The rule 10 cite is in fact the defintion of the foul for illegal contact. The rule 4 cite I provided is the cite for incidental contact. You have to view those in conjunction with each other. You start with rule 10 because if contact doesnt even violate rule 10 in any way, it is definately not a fould. once you have contact that may be a foul under rule 10 you look to rule 4's incidental contact. if the contact is incidental, even if severe, it is to be considered legal. On top of that you then use the judgment given by the introductory Intent of the Rules provision. That is how rules analysis is done regarding contact.
My argument here is that:
1. the contact is illegal under rule 10, that is clear. No one can dispute that. the ballhandler has without question violated the contact rule.
2. incidental contact analysis under rule 4. some could say because there was no advantage/disadvantage it should be ignored or considered legal. i dont find this contact to be incidental, but i agree some could.
3. intent of the rules. all judgment needs to be run through this portion of the rule book in my opinion. here, the rules are to promote safety, equality of skill over physical features, and to not allow a benefit or detriment not intended by the rules. some may disagree with me philosphically, but if i had any hesitation in making the call as a result of 2, above, that hesitation is removed when i consider the requirements of the intent of the rules.
|