Incidental in playing the ball, 10-6-1, is very different than incidental contact, 4-27.

If the hand on ball contact was intended to be judged by degree of contact or hindering the opponent it would have been in 4-27. The amount of contact and whether A1 loses the ball are not factors in judging a foul under 10-6-1.

We are to judge if B1 was attempting to play the ball, if he/she was, then ANY contact is incidental to playing the ball and thus not a foul. A1 can lose the ball or have a very sore hand and it is STILL not a foul.

If you judge that B1 contact put A1 at a disadvantage because the contact prohibited A1 from properly gaining possession of the ball then call the foul. You have rule support to do so.

If you judge B1's contact to be incidental and ball goes OB the give the ball to B because B DID NOT touch the ball, A did. You have rule support to do so.

If you try to say that even though B did not touch the ball pe se but because he touched A's hand while it was on the ball then B is deemed to have touched the ball then this is faulty logic. You do not have rule support for this.

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree. Well thought-out argument from a rules standpoint.

Didn't ysong recently start a thread on this same topic?

A literal interpretation of the rule gives the ball to B.

A "spirit and intent" interpretation (at least *my* spirit and intent interp) gives the ball to A.