Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams
We may be dealing with semantics issue here.
But if a player violates the legal guarding position and cylinder rules and creates contact, that by definition would be illegal contact. We need to judge whether that illegal contact was incidental or impacts the play. Just as all touches are not fouls, the touching does violate the rules in regards to their cylinders.
As i said we may be parsing semantics here, I think we are advocating the same thing. If you break a rule in making contact that is illegal, if we judge that contact to be sufficient to warrant a foul we call it. Saying it wasn't illegal contact would indicate a rule/guideline was not violated. The action is either within the rules or without, fouls are determined based on rules and application of the Tower Principle. Deciding contact was incidental doesn't make the action within the rules, just acceptable based on our judgement of advantage disadvantage.
ie. Why they went to 4 automatics. These types of illegal contact were being based on as incidental, now the illegal action = foul automatically.
|
no, contact is illegal or incidental. Incidental contact is never illegal. They went to the four automatics because too many were ruling the contact incidental/legal.