Incidental contact ?

[Pirate]

Witnessed a situation recently (I was not officiating) where an official let a play continue without a whistle and was wondering how you guys/gals would call the same play?

A1 is dribbling down court, B1 comes up from behind A1 and "accidentally" steps on A1's foot causing A1 to go down and lose possession. Official let it go claiming incidental contact and thus shouldn't be called a foul. I personally see it as an advantage/disadvantage sitch and would have called the foul. Who is right?

[grunewar]

While you HTBT to see it, if it happened as you do described, most times I would call the foul, usually use the "push" signal, put the ball in play, and move out. Wish there was a "trip" foul, but, there's not....as has been discussed before.

Bottom line for me, if you have a real crash, player goes down, advantage defense due to contact, better to call something than let it go.

[JRutledge]

If you are saying that B1 who was not in a legal position comes from behind and steps on and makes contact with a ball handler, that sounds like a foul to me. Now maybe if there is a loose ball or a rebounding situation you might have to see this because I could make a case that players were in a similar advantageous situation, but not when it comes to the ball carrier.

Peace

[BillyMac]

There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping. (foul, no foul)
Accidental isn't always incidental. (contact)

[Pirate]

There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping. (foul, no foul)

Although I've been a member since '99, I consider myself "new" to the board again since I haven't been on here sinc '03. So, could you please enlighten me on the above statement please?

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Although I've been a member since '99, I consider myself "new" to the board again since I haven't been on here sinc '03. So, could you please enlighten me on the above statement please?

Welcome back, you are about to get schooled by the inimitable BillyMac, and you will like it..

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Welcome back, you are about to get schooled by the inimitable BillyMac, and you will like it..

After reading some of the posts on this page, I am expecting and bracing myself for that

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping. (foul, no foul)

An obvious difference is that "being tripped" happens to the "trippee," and "tripping" is generally called on the "tripper." But that's not what BillyMac means.

The point is that players can trip over their own feet, which is obviously not a foul. They can also trip over defenders who have not moved or are otherwise not responsible for the contact, and that tripping is also not a foul.

Only when a player is responsible for the contact in such a way that the result is another player tripping do we have a foul (and possibly not even then).

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Only when a player is responsible for the contact in such a way that the result is another player tripping do we have a foul (and possibly not even then).

So in the OP, would you have called the foul in that sitch? A1 was dribbling downcourt and B1 comes up from behind (obviously not a legal guarding position) and "accidentally", not intentionally, trips (steps on the foot of A1) causing A1 to lose possession. I personally have a foul there, but I'm just wondering what other officials are thinking there.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The point is that players can trip over their own feet, which is obviously not a foul. They can also trip over defenders who have not moved or are otherwise not responsible for the contact, and that tripping is also not a foul. Only when a player is responsible for the contact in such a way that the result is another player tripping do we have a foul (and possibly not even then).

I could not have said it better myself. Seriously. I couldn't. Well done.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pirate

B1 comes up from behind and accidentally, not intentionally, steps on the foot of A1 causing A1 to lose possession.

That's exactly what I meant by, "Accidental isn't always incidental".

[Kelvin green]

how many players really fall down by themselves?

If the player fell down by the actions of another player, I look at a foul.

If the player truly fell doen by themselves then no foul...i

ncidental contact...

Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from
participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered
incidental.

Sounds like the play described the player was hindered in normal offensive movements... Foul!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Witnessed a situation recently (I was not officiating) where an official let a play continue without a whistle and was wondering how you guys/gals would call the same play?

A1 is dribbling down court, B1 comes up from behind A1 and "accidentally" steps on A1's foot causing A1 to go down and lose possession. Official let it go claiming incidental contact and thus shouldn't be called a foul. I personally see it as an advantage/disadvantage sitch and would have called the foul. Who is right?

Sounds like this guy doesn't know the definition of "incidental."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sounds like this guy doesn't know the definition of "incidental."

Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.
ART. 1 The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.
ART. 2 Contact, which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.
ART. 3 Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.
ART. 4 A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.
ART. 5 If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

[Nevadaref]

Last season the NCAA stated that this was one of two "absolutes" when a foul must be called.
Do a search and read some of the posts on that concept. That should help clarify this situation for you.