Establishing confidence, confidence and respect from coaches and players

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

A hard smack on the forearm of A1 by B1 will not be called a foul - if the A1 is able to pass the ball to A2?

What happens if A1 - deep in the corner - throws a full court Baseball pass to A2, during the pass B1 fouls A1; do you wait the two / three seconds to see if A2 can retrieve the pass? or do you call the foul?

I do not believe these are incidental contacts, these are fouls - that an official may / may not call. (I know - it's not a foul unless I blow the whistle - it is easier to type / explain my thoughts this way).

Just because someone is hit on the head alone does not mean there was illegal contact. Unless you can show me or anyone where the rules say otherwise, this is not necessarily true. And that is the point that many here have tried to convey to you in this case. What if that hit took place with the defender in their vertical space and maintained legal guarding position? You cannot just simply say that there is an obvious foul just because someone is hit without other information being shared IMHO.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Snaqwells - A1 goes in for a layup - everyone in the building sees B1 hit A1 after the release of the ball. (by saying everyone sees this - I refer to the physical nature of the contact - it helps to describe the amount of the contact). But A1 shot is not altered, he is not put at a disadvantage. Are you saying you do not call this a foul?

The disadvantage might be because the shooter was not able to land properly or where they were supposed to. This has nothing to do with just the shot being altered and I really did not read Snaq or anyone suggest the two things were mutually exclusive. And if there is contact with an airborne shooter and the shot is not altered in any way, the shooter lands normally, then I probably do not have a foul. Of course I would have to see the play to make that final determination, but it is not an "obvious" or "automatic" foul the way you described it. And honestly it does not matter if you disagree. The rules back this up completely and it is totally a judgment call. We will all be judged for our judgment calls on some level. And either way you call it someone might disagree with the nature of the call no matter what philosophy you ultimately use.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Ds,

I have tried to make this point in regard to the hard hit on the arm, to no avail. Snaqs has made his point clearly and without waiver. There is no need to pursue or attempt to persuade any further.

I also disagree with this statement as well. For one I did not see snaq or anyone dig their heals in the sand. I think the examples are generic at best and do not suggest anything obvious but a personal opinion. If that is all you are saying, then that is fine but that does not mean everyone here has to agree with it. Just like you do not agree, he is no more stubborn (for the complete lack of a better term) on this issue in my opinion than you have been.

Peace

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Just because someone is hit on the head alone does not mean there was illegal contact. Unless you can show me or anyone where the rules say otherwise, this is not necessarily true. And that is the point that many here have tried to convey to you in this case. What if that hit took place with the defender in their vertical space and maintained legal guarding position? You cannot just simply say that there is an obvious foul just because someone is hit without other information being shared IMHO.



The disadvantage might be because the shooter was not able to land properly or where they were supposed to. This has nothing to do with just the shot being altered and I really did not read Snaq or anyone suggest the two things were mutually exclusive. And if there is contact with an airborne shooter and the shot is not altered in any way, the shooter lands normally, then I probably do not have a foul. Of course I would have to see the play to make that final determination, but it is not an "obvious" or "automatic" foul the way you described it. And honestly it does not matter if you disagree. The rules back this up completely and it is totally a judgment call. We will all be judged for our judgment calls on some level. And either way you call it someone might disagree with the nature of the call no matter what philosophy you ultimately use.




I also disagree with this statement as well. For one I did not see snaq or anyone dig their heals in the sand. I think the examples are generic at best and do not suggest anything obvious but a personal opinion. If that is all you are saying, then that is fine but that does not mean everyone here has to agree with it. Just like you do not agree, he is no more stubborn (for the complete lack of a better term) on this issue in my opinion than you have been.

Peace

I was actually comending him on holding his position. I was also jus stating that the subject has become a stalemate and any further debate would prove pointless. I'm not saying he's right, I'm not saying I'm right although I would like to believe I am. Haha

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I was actually comending him on holding his position. I was also jus stating that the subject has become a stalemate and any further debate would prove pointless. I'm not saying he's right, I'm not saying I'm right although I would like to believe I am. Haha

FWIW, I'm not convinced we'd call it too differently out on the court. I think the number of plays that I would let go and you'd call would be very minimal.

[gslefeb]

Snaqwells - thanks for the attempts..How's this:

Contact occurs - in order to be considered illegal:

A. Rules are applied: LGP, Verticality, Blind Screens, illegal use of hands...etc
B. Judgement is applied: Was the contact incidental, affect on the play?, Advantage / Disadvantage?

If A is true the official applies the judgement in part B. While applying the judgement it is important for the official to see the complete play. If part B also indicates the contact is illegal, a foul has occurred.

My attempts (regardless of how poorly worded) only were to try to get a better understanding of part B.