Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Maybe we're talking about the same thing, but somehow I don't think so. We agree that "contact" is not a foul. I think we also agree officials should not blow the whistle immediately on contact. However, I think we disagree on when the whistle is actually blown. It should be blown immediately when it is determined the contact is illegal, NOT only when the play is "finished". And, the "play" does not always include the whole drive to the basket, however, it can include part of the path to the basket.
There is a segment of officials that use the reasoning that if a player makes the shot after contact, there wasn't a foul, and if the shot was missed, then there was a foul. That's not correct according to the rules, and just promotes lazy officiating. If a dribbler is bumped off their path due to illegal contact by a defender, it doesn't matter if they are just crossing the division line, or entering the lane on the way to the basket, it is a foul because it's illegal contact, and the whistle is blown at that point. The official shouldn't wait to blow the whistle solely because of one type of play over another.
Can you tell me what unfair advantage is gained by the defense with contact on the wrist after the ball has left the hand? Does that contact affect the flight of the ball?
|
Yup and yup. Please carry on whilst I go walk my dog. This thread is now in good hands.
And I'm intrigued too about the concept of waiting on a 3 to see if the ball goes in or not when contact was made on the shooter's hand
after the ball left his hand. That's a brand new concept to me also. Maybe the idea is to see if the contact affected the RSBQ of the hand.
And let me know if Zambrano shows up.