Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Is "ball to opponent" interpreted as contact? I would think so.
|
I need more than you saying this on this board. I need an official ruling and mostly from my state people. This has never been addressed directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Unsporting? Probably not because it must be noncontact.
|
As said before, what would you call otherwise if someone through a ball or hit an opponent with the ball? I know I am calling a T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Technical? Probably not because it must be noncontact, and if deemed flagrant, or intentional, the ball must be dead.
|
I guess we have to call fouls for a blocked shot if you knock a player down if they only touched the basketball. After all, why treat contact with the ball any different? If it is all the same, then your logic we cannot differentiate unless we are making up our own standards of when the rules are applied right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
It probably comes down to how one defines contact. Must it be player to player contact, or can it be ball to player contact?
Based on how one defines contact determines whether one should charge a personal foul, or a technical foul.
|
Well without some interpretations, I think you are making a leap. If the NF says that is a foul, that is one thing. But you or I saying it is is a totally different thing. And it would be hard if no one else is seeing the rule application that way and has no way to back it up other than personal feelings. We get on people on this site for not following the rules, but your position is not following the rules. IF someone said, "I am not calling that" why is your position any better if there is no specific rules support.
Peace