High Dribble

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For those who argue not to make such a call, I would direct you to the very similar situation in which the thrower violates while making a throw-in from the backcourt endline. For years there were numerous officials who advocated ignoring such violations, but the NCAA came out a couple of seasons ago with a clear statement that these violations must be called regardless of whether or not there is defensive pressure.

The bottom line is that as an official it is your job to make the teams play within the constructs of the rules. Doing otherwise is unacceptable.

You seem to be softening by the grey phrase 'within the constructs of the rules', at least I read it that way.

End line inbounds violation after a basket with no pressure can be an advantage to team A as they are trying to run in quick transition.


So, regarding my original question about player with deformed 'fist', violation or not?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

So, regarding my original question about player with deformed 'fist', violation or not?

I vote for "not". Just like I wouldn't expect a cop to give a parking ticket to a handicapped driver using a handicapped parking space.

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

Or maybe a windmill?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Or maybe a windmill?

Where? Let me at it!

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I vote for "not". Just like I wouldn't expect a cop to give a parking ticket to a handicapped driver using a handicapped parking space.

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

Well, I certainly wouldn't either. There has to be a level of common sense.

It's a basketball court, not a court of law.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Well, I certainly wouldn't either. There has to be a level of common sense.

It's a basketball court, not a court of law.

True enough, but my point is that we make allowances for handicapped all the time in the interest of fairness.

We don't make those allowances, however, for individuals who are not handicapped.

Not the best analogy, admittedly.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

True enough, but my point is that we make allowances for handicapped all the time in the interest of fairness.

We don't make those allowances, however, for individuals who are not handicapped.

Not the best analogy, admittedly.

Hence why I ignored his 3rd world hypothetical.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

True enough, but my point is that we make allowances for handicapped all the time in the interest of fairness.

We don't make those allowances, however, for individuals who are not handicapped.

Not the best analogy, admittedly.

Snags I do agree with your point. When I made the court reference it was not directed at you, your analogy was a good one.
The player in question to my knowledge never had the violation called on him. Obviously he used his other hand predominantly and would occasionally do a crossover with bad hand.

"A player shall not travel with the ball, as in 4-44, intentionally kick it, as in 4-29, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below."

Definition of strike "to deliver a sharp blow, as with the hand, fist, or weapon"

Does this constitute a sharp blow?

I know how I'd call it.

[Adam]

I believe "strike" is used to define kick as well, but it is not so narrowly defined there. A "kick" is generally called with any purposeful contact between a player's moving leg and the ball.