Quote:
Originally Posted by ccrroo
AremRed -
It almost seems like the dribbler isn't protected as much as the shooter? Because if that much contact is made on a shot, it seems like a foul is usually called (video 4 and 5).
Or maybe another way to ask it is. On plays 4 and 5, are you saying no foul because no harm was done (ie. the dribbler didn't lose the ball in that instance). If the defender had taken the ball, would it still be a no foul. Again, its seem like that amount of contact on a shooter would create a call.
|
I think you'll find the airborne shooter more protected from contact than the dribbler at every level. Refereeing the dribbler and contact from defender is a very tough play in terms of judgement. I can see why the referees passed on all those plays -- they are all in that gray area. These plays are a perfect example of why the game needs to be cleaned up with automatic fouls -- these kids are not skilled enough to be reaching in like that all the time. They see reaching in go unpunished all the time in college and pro ball and they think they are John Stockton 2.0 with their ability to get steals.