Iowa vs. Cincinnati (Video)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Play #1:



Likely more videos to come in this game.

Peace

To me I have a foul on this play. The initial contact may be on the ball, but the shooter still has possession of the ball under the contact on the hand. Had the contact with the ball caused the loss of possession I am not calling a foul, but since the shooter retained possession and only lost possession with the contact, I'm calling a foul.

[Camron Rust]

I do not have a foul on this play. There was one contact and it was with the hand on the ball. It doesn't become a foul just because the ball then separated from the hand with the contact being the same as before.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I do not have a foul on this play. There was one contact and it was with the hand on the ball. It doesn't become a foul just because the ball then separated from the hand with the contact being the same as before.

I agree. *Maybe* if the contact continued and prevented the (original) offensive player from reaching for the ball.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree. *Maybe* if the contact continued and prevented the (original) offensive player from reaching for the ball.

Doesn't it? His hand is going backward because it is being pulled down by the defenders hand.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Doesn't it? His hand is going backward because it is being pulled down by the defenders hand.

I would need to seem some effort on the part of the offensive player that was being hindered here -- I don't see that.

[Kelvin green]

I like the no foul.