|
Good thoughts, BITS.
1. I'll try to clarify. First now that I think about it an unsporting T is NOT an option because by definition that is for a noncontact act and this act involved physical contact. Secondly, my question relates to how an official should properly arrive at a decision in a case of dead ball contact.
Must the official decide only upon the basis of the contact itself whether the action warrants an intentional or flagrant foul, and since this contact is during a dead ball the foul then becomes a T, or can an official reason as follows: there was contact during a dead ball which would not have been considered intentional or flagrant had it occurred during a live ball, but this contact had a clear affect upon the play, so I have to call it a foul (this part is the crux of the ?), now what kind of foul is it? Well, since it had to be called and occurred during a dead ball it must be either intentional or flagrant.
My opinion is that the first approach is correct and that the second way of thinking is circular and begs the question, and therefore also incorrect. However, I have spoken to officials who have explained a call that he/she made in this manner.
2. I agree with you on the point about restricting movement to another location. However, if we focus upon the jumpball situation posed, then that aspect is not a consideration. So if the player let's go of the jumper prior to the toss, does the dead ball hold have any real impact? One could certainly argue that it doesn't physically, but it might affect the opponent mentally. He may not be prepared to jump or he may be distracted.
3. "If it's not deemed intentional, then I think we could easily have a situation where contact that can't be called a foul during the deal ball becomes a common foul once the ball becomes live."
I concur and that was the exact point that I hoped to make.
|