Fun With A Reverse Hot Stove Touch ...
 

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?

Um, no. This is not a foul.

No Foul !!

Where is the hot stove?

Peace

I have no foul on this play.

Hot Stove Touch ...
 

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.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.B...=0&w=260&h=189

They need to find another play for this discussion.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Intrigue ...
 

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.

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

Hot Stove Touch To The Waist ...
 

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

Incidental Contact ...
 

Agree.

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

Thought Provoking Question ...
 

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.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.m...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

Intriguing ...
 

Exactly why I posted this video.

I'm really confused. I thought this was all about the defensive player's actions.

Peace

Goose And Gander ...
 

IAABO's thought provoking question, "If defender had done same to dribbler, would a foul be ruled?" wants one to consider if what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

In other words, if an official legally allows, as incidental contact, the two touches that the ball handler applies to the defender, would that same official adjudicate the same two touches, as legal incidental contact, applied to a ball handler by a defender (in a reverse situation)?

Looking forward to a very interesting IAABO play commentary.

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

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

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is incidental contact.

The dribbler momentarily places a hand on the defender as she dribbles toward the lane. It is not legal to use hands-on an opponent, which in any way inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping. (4-24-5) This contact does not appear to hinder the defensive player, and therefore there is rules support to rule this to be incidental contact. (86% of respondents see this as incidental contact.)

However, officials need to be suspect of this type of contact. Offense-initiated contact is a growing problem in our game. Officials should be reminded that the rules placed upon the players are intended to create a balance of play and provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense. Officials across the country have made great strides applying rule 10-7-12 when defenders are illegally contacting ball handlers. If ball handlers are contacting defenders and inhibiting their movements, a player control foul should be charged.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is incidental contact 86% (including me). This is a player control foul 14%.