Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
If someone were to use the philosophy mindset:
1. On a block/charge play under the basket, what would the response be if the coach asked, "Was my player set to take the charge?" if the player was set and the official just doesn't believe in calling a charge under the basket?
2. What would the response be if B1 clearly has a hand on A1, BUT A1's RBSQ isn't affected and the coach asked, "Did the defender's hand meet the definition of hand checking?"
I think one answer could be explained as contact that didn't impact the play and is a pure judgement call while the other is an official's opinion of what he/she will or will not call. If the official tells a coach that the player was too far under the basket, and the coach knows the requirement to not be under the basket doesn't exist, hold on - the ride is about to get bumpy.
KISS and assume that the coach always knows the rule. Of course the coach often has no clue about the rule, but it keeps officials, assignors, etc. out of harm's way.
|
In #2 I could always say that it is incidental contact and did not affect the "normal movement" of the player. That is also in the rulebook and whether we like it or not, has an actual definition while handchecking mostly is an interpretation of current rules.
That being said I agree totally with the last statement. It is better to sit on the rules when possible. And it is best to use rulebook language.
Peace