Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by RecRef
You have a PC foul - (This BTW is one of my pet peeves when it is not called as a good defensive play is canceled by the referee.)
How is it a player control foul when the contact was ever so slight and in the mind of the official, not a foul?
|
|
At times I feel that the Tower Philosophy can be taken to the extreme. Here we have the D (B1) setting up in a legal guarding position to stop the advancement of the ball. Above that, she has shut down the lane that runs along the sideline. The O (A1) does not alter her path and makes contact. A1 has violated 10.6.2 If a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight-line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble.
Given the above we have A1 moving into B1 plane/space on the floor. She has not altered here path to avoid the contact. While one can say that such contact was not hard and yes Sven says there is slight contact and a bump. B1 is not displaced there is enough contact for A1 to loose control of the ball. Some have asked where is the disadvantage to B? My reply is why are we rewarding A for a clear violation of the rules? Rules that I may add, speak directly about trying to force ones way between the defender and sidelines or between 2 defenders. There-in is the advantage gained by the O.
We all are going to call a game in the way we have been trained, or based on our experiences, or lack there of. In my point of view the offence gets away with to much when we let them move into a defender that has every right to his/her spot on the floor. This to me is no incidental contact.