View Single Post
  #68 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 10, 2010, 01:44pm
Camron Rust Camron Rust is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
She kicked the player in the arm. In soccer, I've got a foul and a unsporting behavior caution for a reckless foul. It it was done with any force I've got a foul and a serious foul play send off for excessive force. If she hadn't made contact, I've got a dangerous play.
Well, she actually "caught the arm". I think there is an implied level of contact here that, while it is sufficient for a foul, is really minimal. Yet, you're taking it to the level of excessive.

And this is NOT soccer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
Kicking the ball simply isn't trying to play the ball. The scenario is a second case scenario from your list.
Sure it is. I don't see how an attempt to contact the ball can be construed as anything but playing the ball. It is not much different than a player swatting near a ball that the opponent has completely wrapped up. There is no chance to actually contact the ball and a foul is the only likely result....yet that is playing the ball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
Yes, the rule that says excessive force is an intentional foul. It's a slam dunk (ha) that kicking a standing opponent in the arm is excessive in basketball where kicking the ball at all is illegal.
.
There was NO hint in the OP that the force was excessive. In fact, the wording in the OP implied that the contact was slight.

If the same amount of contact had occurred with the arm, would it have been intentional? No. Contact is excessive or not based on the amount of contact, not which limbs are involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
Beyond that, it is also contact designed to neutralized an opponent's advantageous position which is also an intentional foul.
The contact wasn't designed at all, it was unintentional. The design was to knock the ball out of the opponent's hands. That part of the intentional rule is for contact that is intended for the sole purpose of contact alone to prevent the player from being able to make any sort of play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
It's ludicrous that we're still discussing this at all. It's no different than the bear hug from behind. There's no possibility of legally contacting the ball.
Legally contacting the ball is not necessary....was the purpose of the action to contact the ball or to simply contact the player? The OP was pretty clear on that.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
So you're willing to accept players kicking each other above the waist as part of the game of basketball?
No one said that. The player didn't "kick" the player. If they had "kicked" the player, it would probably be a flagrant foul. In this play, they kicked at the ball and missed....then made contact with a player's arm.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association

Last edited by Camron Rust; Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 01:49pm.
Reply With Quote