Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Me too but it's right out in front of the world with nothing else going on. I understand the call. I may have called it too....who knows....

[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.