Without expressing my personal opinion on this play, in the interest of stimulating discussion, I'm going to further probe your responses. This doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
But if it did impact the player, I don't see how you could call anything other than the intentional T as the illegal contact took place entirely during the dead ball.
|
Is impact upon the play or player a criterion which an official can/should use to determine if contact is intentional or flagrant or should intentional/flagrant be judged solely on the contact itself and not its effect?
If an official believes that the contact made an impact does that mean that it was intentional? Is that circular thinking? Perhaps basketball decision making wasn't intended to work in this direction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
Distracted, OTOH, I don't think is often a valid consideration. Each player is responsible to maintain his own focus; and his opponent is supposed to distract him. But other than disconcerting a free thrower, or placing hands near a player's eyes, I can't think of any other case where I'd deem a distraction to be an illegal advantage. Well, maybe faking a shot to an opponent's sensitive areas, but that would fall into the unsporting foul category.
|
How about contact at a time when it is unexpected or inappropriate? This could startle an opponent and cause a delayed response to the next play when the ball does become live. Perhaps a poke in the back causes a player to turn around to see who contacted him and at this time the ball goes up. Now the opposing jumper is uncontested. Is that kind of action good gamesmanship or not in the spirit of fair play?