Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
My point is that there is nothing in the rule that says we call a clear path to the basket any different than if they are under the basket. If a defender has no intention on defending the ball or causes excessive contract I agree. But not just fouling someone that has a clear lane is not the criteria in the rule. I also would not say this is an "obvious advantage" when there is a foul. And if that is the case any player that tries to block a shot and fouls a player should be an intentional foul (and does not fit any of the criteria of the rule).
And in the situation which I think this question was asked (Arizona-UConn game early in that game) that was not an intentional foul and the ball handler had a clear lane to the basket.
Peace
|
Like I said, I wasn't commenting on the play since I haven't seen it. My point is simple, that in spite of the fact that there are other criteria to consider, a player fouling a shooter from behind gets more scrutiny. And yes, "obvious advantage" is directly from the rule, so I'm not sure how you can disagree with it.
Frankly, as described by tref, I'd call the intentional (grabbing a shooter from behind), but again, I haven't seen the play.
And this is just a ridiculous non sequitur.