Atta boy!! :D

Not only that, you didn't say anything about his "favorite missed travel" -- you know, the one that isn't a travel. ;)

I find this very interesting and yet true. This definitely would cause some recruiting issues.

I find it interesting that this coach says we don't call all the pushing and contact, but when we do step up and start calling everything, than this same coach will say we call too much. You can't have it both ways coach!

Personally, I don't like to call a lot of traveling violations. In order to get the marginal travels like what the coach is asking for. That means I got to focus on the players feet. As sure as sh!t, I'm sitting there looking at the feet and miss something obvious right in front of me. Coach would be even madder at me then. Like I said, can't have it both ways. This coach, unfortunately, has a hidden agenda.

Maybe you are too close to the play.

When I first read this thread yesterday, I wasn't going to bother to respond, but after you continue to spew such nonsense I am compelled to reply.

So why you are watching these two players sprint down the court right in front of your partner on a play that you ARE NOT going to make a call on even if you think there is a foul? If you aren't going to help, then you shouldn't be looking there.

Also, who is watching the other eight players who are behind the play while you are ball-hawking your partners play? Someone could have punched someone or clocked an opponent with an elbow and you would have had no clue what happened.

You partner's explanation sounds pretty good to me. Perhaps that is why he is a six year veteran of varsity ball and you are ....???

It is solely your opinion that he missed the call. Do you call a foul everytime one player steps on another's foot?

Finally, I hate to break it to you, but incidental contact is NEVER a foul, and it doesn't matter from which direction it occurs--the front, the side, or the back. You need to spend more time reading the rules book, especially 4-27 "Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul," and less time criticizing your partner's calls.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I have a hard time seeing how a trailing player tripping an opponent is just incidental contact. Defender was at a disadvantage. Defender's action overcame that disadvantage with contact that created an advantage. That is not incidental contact.

4-27 is the definition of incidental contact. Art 2 only talks about unintentional contact on a loose ball or when both players are in equally favorable positions. I don't see how chasing the offensive player puts both in equally favorable positions.

Art 5 is the clincher however.

Sorry, I gotta side with the Nate on this one. Lead did swallow his whistle on that call as it was explained.

Actually, you are debating whether or not the contact WAS incidental. I'm not going to do that.

Nate used the words "incidental contact from behind" and implied that his partner wrongly believes this isn't a foul. I'm telling him that while he is busy criticizing his partner, he might want to go look up the definition of incidental contact because by rule it isn't a foul and his partner is correct to leave the gym believing that.

I didn't see the play. I can't make a judgment on it. All I can go by is the words of calling official, and I'm getting them secondhand. That official said that the two players got their feet tangled and that it wasn't worthy of a call. If my partner said those words to me, then that would be good enough for me. I certainly wouldn't come on an internet forum and trash him as Nate has been doing.

Who knows what really happened down there on the other end of the court from Nate? He certainly shouldn't. He had his own area and players to watch, but obviously he wasn't. Remember all we are getting is his side of it from probably at least 1/2 of the court away.

Nevada, you didn't get the memo. Many people think it is OK and justify watching the ball all over the court.
We constantly hear, "Let's get the call right" even though the right call might be a flagrant elbow off-ball that is missed because the action with the ball is more interesting. I don't want to jinx anyone, but all it will take is a puddle of blood, an irate coach, an irate parent and an official physically near the play who doesn't know how it happened for some people to learn.

tomegun,
There's nothing wrong with what you say, but there are times, when all my "off-ball players" have a nice spacing between themselves, that I'll take a look at the ball 50' away. There are other times when a fast break is (moving the other way) parallel with a partner, that I may be looking to help with contact away from my partner.
There's may only be two of us, and one of us may need help. ;)

Okay first of all, I have been doing Vboys for about 10 years, with some DIII mixed in. Second of all, I had a clear view of my area. The change of possesion was so quick that the only two players on the floor that knew the ball was going the other way was A1 and B1. Your comment about incidental comment is STUPID!! There is a big difference between INCIDENTAL and ACCIDENTAL contact. This is where YOU and MY PARTNER are wrong. Did B1 mean to step on the Back of A1 foot as A1 went up for the dunk!! NO!! So according to your response, this isn't a foul. My partner said that it was incidental contact, which is a total misapplication of the rules!! I hope that this clears things up for you. Anytime a player has an advantage (AI-break way)and the defender who trails him (B1) does anything to impede his action other than make a play on the ball, it has to be a foul. If two players are running up the floor w/out the basketball and you can determine that the back of the shoe was stepped on incidentally or accidentally then you may not have a foul, but put the defender behind the ball on a breakaway and you better have a call or be prepared to have several thousand pissed off people after you.

Nate,

The quote from Nevadaref regarding incidental contact is taken from the first sentence of 4-27 (NFHS) verbatim. Now, whether the contact was incidental or not is another story.

Yes, it was. That is not what is in question. What is in question is incidental/accidental contact. See the described play and decided for yourself whether you would rule it incidental contact.

I'm a little distressed that tjones was the only one on here that picked up on this. After reading this comment in the article, the question should be "what else does he have incorrect in his rant."

Before giving him credit for being right, let's examine whether he feels the way he does based on the fact that he's wrong.

Nate, you are the one that said it was incidental contact. You wrote that in post #15. I merely told you that the rules say incidental contact isn't a foul.

You never used the word accidental prior to post #40.

BTW if you wish to discuss accidental contact, what criteria do you use to decide when to call a foul and when not to on that type of contact?

What would you call on this play:
B1 falls to the floor at the FT line. A1 is dribbling the ball and doesn't see B1. A1 trips over B1, falls to the floor, and loses the ball. B2 gets the ball.