Advantage/Disadvantage

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. Or even if it does affect the movement, to a degree, but doesn't make the player lose the ball.

Not necessarily true. If the contact prevents the player from going where he wants to go, it's a foul even if he keeps the ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"Coach, there was some contact but it your guy still got around him. I don't want to take a layup away from your player."

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not necessarily true. If the contact prevents the player from going where he wants to go, it's a foul even if he keeps the ball.

Your guy in the above quote was forced slightly off line, away from exactly where he wanted to go, but still was looking at an open layup.

So?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Your guy in the above quote was forced slightly off line, away from exactly where he wanted to go, but still was looking at an open layup.

So?

No-call, and easily explained. I'm not going to pick nits about whether the player was afforded the precise pathway he chose. If his progress isn't impeded or slowed enough to prevent a wide open shot, I'll know-call it.

However, my objection to your wording still stands. Just because a player maintains control of the ball does not mean there's no foul; especially if he's held or otherwise illegally impeded from getting that wide open shot.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No-call, and easily explained. I'm not going to pick nits about whether the player was afforded the precise pathway he chose. If his progress isn't impeded or slowed enough to prevent a wide open shot, I'll know-call it.

However, my objection to your wording still stands. Just because a player maintains control of the ball does not mean there's no foul; especially if he's held or otherwise illegally impeded from getting that wide open shot.

This is not what I said. I think we are saying the same thing, but coming at it from different directions. In your play above, the dribbler may have been bumped slightly off line, but still had an open layup. Easy no call. Conversely, if the same bump takes place out at the top, the dribbler has no place to go, but the bump is not what prevented him from having a place to go. I still have a no call.

[chartrusepengui]

Coach: "wasn't that a handcheck? At the meeting they said it was a handcheck!"

Me: "did you hear my whistle?"

Coach: "no"

There's yer sign!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. Or even if it does affect the movement, to a degree, but doesn't make the player lose the ball.

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not what I said. I think we are saying the same thing, but coming at it from different directions. In your play above, the dribbler may have been bumped slightly off line, but still had an open layup. Easy no call. Conversely, if the same bump takes place out at the top, the dribbler has no place to go, but the bump is not what prevented him from having a place to go. I still have a no call.

I knew what you meant, but was addressing the way I read it. You're right, if he wasn't anywhere anyway, it's a no-call. That said, that bump is more likely to get called. If I can't verify there was no effect, I'm likely to make the call by default.

I think, also, when I read the post originally, I somehow missed "to a degree." My only point was that losing the ball isn't the only way to get a foul here.