Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
I'm not sure rule 10 is where you start. Rule 10-6 is a kind of detailed description of legal and illegal contact, but even illegal contact can be no-called if it doesn't fit rule 4. If you start with rule 4, and define a foul as illegal contact that creates an advantage or disadvantage, then the OP is clearly not a foul. Don't even need to look at rule 10.
|
I dont disagree with this approach. But I prefer to start with 10 then go to 4. Was the contact even a foul under the rules? If so, do ad/disad. Also, keep in mind the concepts contained in the Intent portion. Maybe I shouldnt do my process that way, but I do. Obviously, on the court, you do it in a split second. I'm sure I never in my life will ever talk myself through things like that on the court. There isnt enough time. And the officials that try to do that wind up paralyzed on the court and dont make any calls. I am talking about how I analyze things after the fact when I try to think about calls and situations.
I think this is an interesting discussion, personally, that leads us to rules analysis and philosophy. I like that stuff.
I still have the foul, but as I said before I would definately post game it with my partner: "did you see that charge I had, what did you have on that?" He may way say "I would have no-called it."
