Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan
But...I already said I wouldn't call a foul on White #22 so that point is pretty much moot.
Part of NFHS 4-23-1 says every player is entitled to a spot on the floor. And I know the rest: provided they get there first without illegally contacting an opponent. If it's judged that White #22 didn't commit a foul it follows that, in my eyes, he got there without illegally contacting an opponent so he's entitled to that spot.
I think that's where the whole "no call" argument goes away - for me. To say it's a no call, then by definition both players got to the spot without making illegal contact. Fine. The next step, then, is Blue #1's elbow which, IMO, is definitely illegal contact so that's my foul call.
|
The point that you made that betrays the conclusion you're trying to make is " It's also my feeling the elbow by Blue #1 needed to be dealt with regardless of what was or wasn't called on White #22. " That statement is inconsistent with the rest of your argument. This statement says you think the elbow was an intentional foul. But then you don't call it an intentional foul. You can't have it both ways.
And I've yet to figure out how a player who went over his opponents shoulder and leg to get to the ball and to get into a position to be contacted by an elbow got to the spot first. He was late to the spot...not really even close. Do you normally allow defender the privilege of climbing over their opponents shoulders to get to the ball? I guarantee you that if the elbow element were removed from this play, you and nearly everyone else would have a defensive foul. The elbow is a red herring.