Quote:
Originally Posted by rekent
For example: A1 under pressure bringing the ball into the front-court, B1 bumps A1 creating enough contact that a foul could be called and it is not marginal, but A1 keeps his balance and takes off and is actually put in a better position now than if the foul had been called.
When I was first learning from a D1 official, I was told to save that call and let A1 keep the resulting advantage. Now though, (far less experienced and lower level) people are saying to call that foul even though there was no "possession consequence."
So that is my question. In the officiating community, is allowing that play to go because it puts the aggrieved player in a better position despite callable contact still the favored approach, or is what I am being told now to call everything regardless of a lack of "possession consequence" the more currently accepted approach?
|
Your first play sounds like an RSBQ play...if the dribbler's rhythm, speed, quickness, or balance is effected, then it's a foul. Otherwise, pass on the play. Possession consequence (as I've been thought) deals with rebounding situations.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.
Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.
|