[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

Again, I call bull pucky.

By rule, you're wrong. It's only incidental contact if that contact does not give a player an advantage not meant by rule. The contact always has to be incidental to the defender attempting to play the ball. Says so right in NFHS rule 10-6-2.

There's no rule in existence that I know of that states an official can ignore contact that gives their opponents a decided advantage. That's regarded as illegal contact....and that's exactly what you're promoting.

The definition of "Incidental Contact" in rule 4-27-3 says that the contact can't hinder an opponent from participating in normal offensive movements. Soooooo....'splain to me how hitting a player's hand and knocking the ball away ISN'T hindering that player from performing his normal offensive duties?

...

By letter of the relevant rules, it should be a foul. By accepted practice, you give team A the ball for a throw-in instead. If you're "that official" however, you will give team B the throw-in.

Lah me....massive over-thinking of a common call runs rampant again.

JMCFO.

PS...I also disagree with you that B1 didn't knock the ball OOB also.

Couldn't be more wrong.

Hitting the hand in an attempt to hit the ball is NOT a foul....advantage or not...ever. By rule, it is explictly excuded from being a foul in two places.

4-24-2... It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

There you have it. It is legal. Period.

10-6-1...He or she shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

This is not talking about incidental contact...it is talking about the action being part of playing the ball as opposed to act solely intended to hit the hand.

Incidental contact only allows an official to ignore contact that would otherwise be a foul when there is no advantage gained. It does NOT, never has, and never will, turn contact that is explictly defined as legal into a foul if it leads to an advantage.


There would be no point to either of these rules quotes if a foul were desired in the presense of an advantage. The other rules would already cover that just fine. These only exist to allow such contact as legal when, without them, it would be illegal.