Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by MN BB Ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by MN BB Ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Or it's nothing.
Does the contact put the defender at a disadvantage?
Most of the time contact like this is rightfully called an out-of-bounds violation as the player with the ball ends up out of bounds.
Rich
|
Though this play doesn't appear to put the defender at a disadvantage as the contact was slight, IMHO that truly isn't the case. The defender obtained legal guarding position and probably was attempting to draw the foul. The offensive player contacted the defensive player in a minor fashion, but contact occurred none the less. By rule this is a foul and the defender was put at a disadvantage. Why? Well if we don't call the foul and allow the offensive player to continue with the ball the defender is now in a disadvantaged position to defend the ball.
Agree??? Disagree???
|
Disagree. The rules require us to ignore incidental contact. Sven already said he judged the contact to be
incidental.
|
I love where this is going. I agree that the rulebook requires us to ignore incidental contact, however maybe I then need a definition of what incidental contact is. If you define incidental contact as contact that is unintentional or doesn't cause harm, then wouldn't that be the majority of contact?
...
Dave
|
Incidental contact has nothing at all to do with intentional contact. Generally incidental contact is contact made by players who are in an equal position to perform normal offensive/defensive movement and doesn't leave one of them unable to perform normal offensive/defensive movement.
|
SOOOOOOO....is this incidental or not? I would say no as trying to squeeze through a 1 foot gap is not normal offensive movement...at least its not normal without contact.