Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cdaref
I dont think you are getting what i am saying. You cant have a foul under rule 10 I cited without contact, that is the illegal contact rule. I think perhaps you dont have your books in front of you. Check them, then lets talk. No, you dont just use rule 10, but that is where you start. It defines what illegal contact is that is a foul. You then use rule 4 as I detail above.
I think you and I are saying the same thing, you are just saying that in your judgment it is incidental contact from rule 4 because the big kid didnt move and in your analysis there was no advantage disadvantage.
|
You're saying one of two things: 1. Advantage isn't required here because the dribbler broke rule 10. 2. There is some sort of advantage/disadvantage I'm not seeing.
You're right on what I'm saying, and you're right that I don't have my rule book in front of me. My rule book is 960 miles away right now, so if you don't think I'm worthy of discussing it with you until I can hold the book in my hands, so be it, it'll have to wait a week or so.
My point isn't with illegal screens. Consider A1 driving to the hoop, B1 reaches through and hacks A1 on the elbow as he drives, but it has zero effect on A1's drive. Are you going to call this foul, or are you going to let it go because there was no advantage gained?
Most here would say let it go and allow A1 the fruits of his drive to the basket. If you're going to call this a foul, why doesn't it fit the "incidental contact" definition?