hand's part of the ball

[devdog69]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust

Sometimes common sense and the spirit and intent within the rules are needed and this play fits that need.

AMEN!

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by devdog69

Camron, so you are saying that A1 is dribbling and B1 slaps and gets hand/ball or all hand and the ball goes out of bounds it is B's ball for the ensuing throw-in?

No. Hand & Ball and I'm giving it to A. Hand only (which I don't recall ever actually happening) and I'm giving it to B.

[Jimgolf]

If hitting the dribbler's hand causes the ball to go out of bounds, then it is not incidental contact, and therefore a foul.

However, I'm not going to call a foul. As far as I'm concerned, I saw B hit it OOB, and I'm awarding the ball to A. I suspect that in practice, most of you are going to call it that way as well.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

BTW, can we add "The hand is part of the ball" to the list of rules myths?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jimgolf
If hitting the dribbler's hand causes the ball to go out of bounds, then it is not incidental contact, and therefore a foul.

However, I'm not going to call a foul. As far as I'm concerned, I saw B hit it OOB, and I'm awarding the ball to A. I suspect that in practice, most of you are going to call it that way as well.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

BTW, can we add "The hand is part of the ball" to the list of rules myths?

Wrong.

The rule says incidental to playing the ball, not incidental contact. What happens to the ball has nothing to do with it being a foul or not. We are to judge whether or not the defender was playing the ball and frankly short of the defender saying I'm intentially going to hit that hand, it would be highly unlikely it could ever be ruled a foul.

It's not a myth, what else does 10-6-1 say if it is not, the hand is considered part of the ball while playing the ball?

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Wrong.

The rule says incidental to playing the ball, not incidental contact. What happens to the ball has nothing to do with it being a foul or not. We are to judge whether or not the defender was playing the ball and frankly short of the defender saying I'm intentially going to hit that hand, it would be highly unlikely it could ever be ruled a foul.

It's not a myth, what else does 10-6-1 say if it is not, the hand is considered part of the ball while playing the ball?

So I ask, AGAIN....

If this is so, should we not award the ball back to Team A - because the hand is part of the ball, and therefore contacting the hand while on the ball is the same has hitting only the ball?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy

So I ask, AGAIN....

If this is so, should we not award the ball back to Team A - because the hand is part of the ball, and therefore contacting the hand while on the ball is the same has hitting only the ball?

Unfortunately, it says that only under 10-6-1 talking about contact that is or is not a foul and not under 7-2-1. Common sense tells me that it could easily be applied to OOB plays as well, but the rules, as written, don't back that up.

What most officials are saying, and then calling, is that it is not likely that B would hit all hand without touching some ball.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
What most officials are saying, and then calling, is that it is not likely that B would hit all hand without touching some ball.

In other words, that on this play B hit some ball by definition. Sort of like Miss Manners saying that all babies and all brides are beautiful by definition.

[SavaahnTy]

LOL.. you know what is interesting?

My female roommate, who I am trying to get to start officiating, made this comment as we were sitting here looking over this and many other posts.

" Why does it seem like some of those guys are just looking for ways to screw the players and show how smart they are for knowing the exact rule? "

I attempted to explain the " spirit of the rule " theory....

" So is it by the book... or " spirit "? How the **** am I supposed to know? "

ahhhh, the joys of officiating!

[SavaahnTy]

CANUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

great great joke!!!! ( generals were due )

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by blindzebra
What most officials are saying, and then calling, is that it is not likely that B would hit all hand without touching some ball.

I would like to think that if B did not touch any of the ball, A should still keep possession - and that most if not all coaches would not have a problem with it (though it's foolish to assume what coaches won't complain about).

If a coach were to complain, I would blow my whistle, and immediately change my call to a foul on B1

[SavaahnTy]

AWSOME!

I thought I was the only one who has done that

If I should have had a foul... but dont right away, and you wanna complain... then I will agree... I should make the correct call.

Thanks for your help coach!!!!

Having fun with the situation at the moment.

The Generals have to win sometime.. dont they?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

In other words, that on this play B hit some ball by definition. Sort of like Miss Manners saying that all babies and all brides are beautiful by definition.

Or breathtaking if you are a Seinfeld fan.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
...if you are a Seinfeld fan.

Which I"m not.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Which I"m not.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Which I"m not.

Too bad, that came from one of their funniest shows.

They were in the Hamptons and George had a shrinkage problem and Elaine was called breathtaking by an attractive doctor, unfortunately he called an ugly baby breathtaking too.