Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

From experience here - it is better to get the intentional "touch" so that she doesn't feel that she has to subsequently tackle her to accomplish her goal.

Happened a few weeks ago in my game. I was the trail in the backcourt. Defensive team behind by a few points was running out of time and obviously trying to stop the clock with a foul. B1, in the backcourt, reaches to foul A1 and misses contact by inches. I pass on the "foul". A1 quickly dribbles past B1 into the frontcourt where she's hammered by B2. My partner, the lead, correctly calls an intentional (excessive contact) foul on B2.

I'm not saying that I should have called the first (phantom) foul but I will certainly consider it in the future. In some cases the offensive team, in this situation, will simply default to just shooting their free throws, but in other cases the offensive team will try to avoid stopping the clock by avoiding fouls by the defense. Rock and hard place?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Happened a few weeks ago in my game. I was the trail in the backcourt. Defensive team behind by a few points was running out of time and obviously trying to stop the clock with a foul. B1, in the backcourt, reaches to foul A1 and misses contact by inches. I pass on the "foul". A1 quickly dribbles past B1 into the frontcourt where she's hammered by B2. My partner, the lead, correctly calls an intentional (excessive contact) foul on B2.

I'm not saying that I should have called the first (phantom) foul but I will certainly consider it in the future. In some cases the offensive team, in this situation, will simply default to just shooting their free throws, but in other cases the offensive team will try to avoid stopping the clock by avoiding fouls by the defense.

I think that we are saying the same thing? A phantom foul is minimal contact that you would normally pass on? Needs to be some contact for me otherwise you would be punishing a good play by the offense if they are able to "avoid" the contact.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

A phantom foul is minimal contact that you would normally pass on?

My "phantom foul" is this game was no contact. That's why I passed on it. The defender missed the attempted hold by mere inches.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

I think that we are saying the same thing? A phantom foul is minimal contact that you would normally pass on? Needs to be some contact for me otherwise you would be punishing a good play by the offense if they are able to "avoid" the contact.

If the offense is ceding the foul as well, then by all means call the first contact. If the offense is breaking away from a layup and the defense is barely able to even make minimal contact: don't call something you wouldn't have called earlier in the game.

I kept watching it, expecting to see something more substantive in the contact than the intentional brush on the back. I see no impact on the shooter. She's not throwing a punch, so it matters whether or not the contact made a difference.

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements should be considered incidental." No exception is made for intentional contact.

[Blindolbat]

These are the very types of Intentional fouls that we all cringe at. But to me this is what the NFHS wants called as intentional. It's a breakaway that the defender has no chance to defend legally so they reach out and push/grab with no legitimate chance at the ball. I guess if she comes up from behind and blasts her into the wall then it makes our jobs a whole lot easier.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

If the offense is ceding the foul as well, then by all means call the first contact. If the offense is breaking away from a layup and the defense is barely able to even make minimal contact: don't call something you wouldn't have called earlier in the game.

I kept watching it, expecting to see something more substantive in the contact than the intentional brush on the back. I see no impact on the shooter. She's not throwing a punch, so it matters whether or not the contact made a difference.

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements should be considered incidental." No exception is made for intentional contact.

This play does fit the automatics. It is done from behind. I think saying if it doesn't affect the player it's always incidental is wrong. 1. Because there is an effect that we might not see. 2. Suppose the player touches her,right left, right left all the way from half court. On purpose. Offense keeps dribbling. Isn't "preventing" anything...but it's a foul. I understand where you come from by what it says but just because it doesn't prevent ..doesn't make it all incidental.

Ex. You hold ball. I whack at ball and hit crap out of your wrist. You keep holding ball. You weren't going anywhere. Didn't cause you a "disadvantage" but that's a foul. If you only look at the sentence above it wouldn't be one. Can't read it in isolation. Imo.

[Adam]

It's still incidental because there's zero impact on the shooter. None.

And in your example, I'm not calling that either for precisely that reason. If it dislodges the ball, I'll call the foul. If it doesn't impact the ball handler in any noticeable way, then I've got nothing. Just like the 100 lb pg running into the 250 lb center and falling off: I'm not calling the PC foul there, it's incidental contact because the innocent party wasn't disadvantaged (or displaced) in any way.

Your #2 point gets called a hand check due to the changes made, which do not apply to a single touch. If they wanted this to apply to a single touch, they would have said so, but this play in no way resembles a hand-check.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's still incidental because there's zero impact on the shooter. None.

And in your example, I'm not calling that either for precisely that reason. If it dislodges the ball, I'll call the foul. If it doesn't impact the ball handler in any noticeable way, then I've got nothing. Just like the 100 lb pg running into the 250 lb center and falling off: I'm not calling the PC foul there, it's incidental contact because the innocent party wasn't disadvantaged (or displaced) in any way.

Your #2 point gets called a hand check due to the changes made, which do not apply to a single touch. If they wanted this to apply to a single touch, they would have said so, but this play in no way resembles a hand-check.

It is a left hand and then a right hand. It does resemble the wording of the rule. And..if you allow a player to smack the shi...out of a player holding the ball without calling a foul simply because the player held onto the ball I think you are making a mistake...a big one. Each will have to decide for themselves.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It is a left hand and then a right hand. It does resemble the wording of the rule. And..if you allow a player to smack the shi...out of a player holding the ball without calling a foul simply because the player held onto the ball I think you are making a mistake...a big one. Each will have to decide for themselves.

First time through, I didn't think she ever made contact. After watching a few more times, I think she might have brushed her with each hand, but this isn't a hand check. I'm sorry, it may fit the "one hand - two hand" wording, but that's too much of a stretch for me.

"hand checking" is a specific play where the defender is actively defending someone: virtually always in a position to actually defend. This is not that play.

I will say this, if you call anything, you better call it intentional. I'd just like to think I'd have the patience to let it go.

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Adam;1001329]It's still incidental because there's zero impact on the shooter. None.


The play does resemble the premeditated portion of the rule. Intent. Not severity.