Fun With A Reverse Hot Stove Touch ...

[BillyMac]

Does Dribbler commit a foul on this play? Dribbler contacts defender with right arm twice while dribbling. Is it a foul or is this incidental contact? If defender had done same to dribbler, would a foul be ruled?

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...YF7jTAfA%3D%3D

Two choices: This is a player control foul. This is incidental contact.

My comment: This is incidental contact. No advantage gained.

Thoughts?

[MechanicGuy]

Um, no. This is not a foul.

[LeRoy]

No Foul !!

[JRutledge]

Where is the hot stove?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

I have no foul on this play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where is the hot stove?

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we refer to the first, only, and short-lived touch of ball handler by a defender as a legal "hot stove touch". Any hand contact beyond that becomes justification to adjudicate a hand check foul.

10-6-12: The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler. A player becomes a ball handler when he/she receives the ball. This would include a player in a post position.
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

I used the made-up phrase "reverse hot stove touch" to describe this video play, the first, only, short-lived, and possibly legal touch of a defender by a ball handler.

[Raymond]

They need to find another play for this discussion.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

They need to find another play for this discussion.

I usually only post interesting video situations, situations that might generate some lively debate, and don't usually bother to post the mundane situations. The only reason that I posted this video was because the IAABO question, "If defender had done same to dribbler, would a foul be ruled?" intrigued me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we refer to the first, only, and short-lived touch of ball handler by a defender as a legal "hot stove touch". Any hand contact beyond that becomes justification to adjudicate a hand check foul.

10-6-12: The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler. A player becomes a ball handler when he/she receives the ball. This would include a player in a post position.
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

I used the made-up phrase "reverse hot stove touch" to describe this video play, the first, only, short-lived, and possibly legal touch of a defender by a ball handler.

I am very aware of the term and the rule, but I see no such thing happening in this video. And as Raymond said, I think they need a better example.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... but I see no such thing happening in this video.

You don't see the ball handler reach out her right hand and touch the defender on the waist (what I commented was incidental contact)? It appears to actually happen twice in very rapid succession (maybe she didn't get burned enough by the hot stove the first time)?

Or do you believe that the second touch made it a hand check foul (as stated by the rule)?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You don't see the ball handler reach out her right hand and touch the defender on the waist (what I commented was incidental contact)? It appears to actually happen twice in very rapid succession (maybe she didn't get burned enough by the hot stove the first time)?

Or do you believe that the second touch made it a hand check foul (as stated by the rule)?

I do not see what I would call a hot stove touch. I do not even see confirmed contact from this angle. I see a player with their arm out and when the ball handler moves she retreats her arm, which is not my understanding of the hot stove touch. Either they need a better angle or they need a better video. This was not a very good example if you ask me because you cannot see the actual thing they suggest might be an example of those kinds of actions.

I have nothing in this video to tell me definitively there is a foul. And "touching" is not a foul in itself. I never call a foul just because a player touches their opponent. I call a foul when they use their arm you keep their place or contact the ball handler on purpose. If we called fouls every time a player touches someone, we would have a foul on every possession.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have nothing in this video to tell me definitively there is a foul. And "touching" is not a foul in itself. I never call a foul just because a player touches their opponent. I call a foul when they use their arm you keep their place or contact the ball handler on purpose.

Agree.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This is incidental contact. No advantage gained.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You don't see the ball handler reach out her right hand and touch the defender on the waist (what I commented was incidental contact)?...

Or do you believe that the second touch made it a hand check foul (as stated by the rule)?

You are confusing me. Is this conversation about what the offensive player did or what the defensive player did?


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Is this conversation about what the offensive player did or what the defensive player did?

It's apparently about what the offensive player did (player control foul, or incidental contact). IAABO also added the thought provoking question, "If defender had done same to dribbler, would a foul be ruled?"

Here's how IAABO introduced the video:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Does Dribbler commit a foul on this play? Dribbler contacts defender with right arm twice while dribbling. Is it a foul or is this incidental contact? If defender had done same to dribbler, would a foul be ruled?

I should probably be more clear that these introductory statements are not my words but are always the words of IAABO.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's apparently about what the offensive player did (player control foul, or incidental contact). IAABO also added the thought provoking question, "If defender had done same to dribbler, would a foul be ruled?"

Here's how IAABO introduced the video:

I should probably be more clear that these introductory statements are not my words but are always the words of IAABO.

IF we believe the words, then it's (by rule) a foul on the defense. I don't think the video matches the rule and I would not rule the video to be a foul no matter who did it.

Taking a rule that applies to the defense and a ball handler/dribbler (I recognize FED doesn't use that term, I don't think) then showing a play where the offense (might) makes some contact is just .... well, thelt's say there are better ways to make a point.