Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
You just said he had the ball and was displaced. Yet it's a no-call???? Disagree.
Two hands on the ball-handler is a foul. Period. This is an "absolute" at the college level (for men, anyway). It's a good -- and EASY, I might add -- way to quickly clean up a game. Add the displacement (away from the basket, no less!) and it's a foul at any level, IMHO.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
You just said he had the ball and was displaced. Yet it's a no-call???? Disagree.
Two hands on the ball-handler is a foul. Period. This is an "absolute" at the college level (for men, anyway). It's a good -- and EASY, I might add -- way to quickly clean up a game. Add the displacement (away from the basket, no less!) and it's a foul at any level, IMHO.
|
Whats the definition of "incidental contact"? Contact that had no bearing on the play. Did he lose the ball? No. Did he lose his balance? Not really. He was already off balance because he had to reach for the ball. Did he lose his rhythm? No. Was his speed affected (or is that effected?)? No. Was his direction changed? No. So speed, rhythm, balance, direction where not effected. What was the outcome of the play? An easy bucket. No foul. I too have been taught "two of anything" on the player with the ball is a foul. One hand + one knee. Foul. Two hands = Foul. However, this goes against the fundamental principles of basketball. Incidental contact should not be penalized. Two hands on the back of the player with the ball can be incidental contact. The "two of anything" philosophy is just that. A philosophy of some officials. Maybe a great many officials. I don't know. I know some officials who agree with this. I don't but if my assignor wants me to call it...when in Rome. But it's not supported by the concept of "incidental contact", which is clearly outlined in the Fed Rule Book.
There is also the "Tower Philosophy" which can be stated in the following manner.
"If they are unfairly affected as a result of an infraction of the rules,
then the one not in compliance must be penalized. If there has been
no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game
shall not be interrupted. The action should be ignored. Is this contact
incidental and not vital?"
Does not the above description describe this play? I think so. So we will just have to disagree. I think this is a good no call.