Fun With Contact …

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I didn't see it initially, but the offensive player's arm/elbow was under the defenders chin then upside her head. Hard to ignore that one....it was escalating it to the next level.

And that is why the contact that the defender caused from behind and while sticking her arm into the mix warranted a whistle first. I’ve never been comfortable calling the second foul which is in response to contact I just allowed.
It feels unjust.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And that is why the contact that the defender caused from behind and while sticking her arm into the mix warranted a whistle first. I’ve never been comfortable calling the second foul which is in response to contact I just allowed. It feels unjust.

I see no illegal body contact by the defender, she stops on a dime just short of contact and doesn't move forward, all the incidental body contact is initiated by the pivoting (once she finally decides on a pivot foot) ball handler. But this is a subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question.

Nevadaref is correct in that the defender complicates things by adding her right arm into the mix, but I see no illegal arm contact. Again, this is a subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question.

Allowing incidental body contact, or allowing arm contact not putting the ball handler at a disadvantage, shouldn't subsequently be used as a rationale by an official to automatically pass (as just) on a player who responds to one, or two, slight incidental contacts with a subsequent contact to the head (it wasn't a knockout punch, but it wasn't slight either).

Three contacts passed on don't necessarily make a right. Anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (not going down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here) should to be charged. Also another subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question.