Question @Drive to the Basket

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

How about if B1 in the course of trying to stop A1's pass to A3 knocks A1 to the floor, yet the pass is still on target? B1 displaced A1 which by definition, is a foul.....

You killing this?

I'm not commenting on a series of "what-if'" plays, I'm commenting on your specific usage of words. In your original question, you said B1 fouls A1 across the arm. Then, it's simple - blow the whistle because you determined a foul occured. But again, if you are simply envisioning a play where B1 contacts A1's arm during the pass, and the pass is not affected because A3 was able to score easily, then most of us would agree that the contact was incidental, and therefore a foul did not occur.

In your play you appear to use the term "foul" interchangeably with "contact", and that would be incorrect usage. That also causes a lot of misconceptions. We never "pass" on a foul; we do however, judge some contact to be incidental, and thus a foul has not occured. That's where the phrase "A foul is a foul" comes in - it does not mean the same contact should be ruled a foul every single time. It simply means we never "pass" on fouls, even though we may rule contact to be incidental, and thus no foul occured.

Can you understand the difference?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not commenting on a series of "what-if'" plays, I'm commenting on your specific usage of words. In your original question, you said B1 fouls A1 across the arm. Then, it's simple - blow the whistle because you determined a foul occured. But again, if you are simply envisioning a play where B1 contacts A1's arm during the pass, and the pass is not affected because A3 was able to score easily, then most of us would agree that the contact was incidental, and therefore a foul did not occur.

In your play you appear to use the term "foul" interchangeably with "contact", and that would be incorrect usage. That also causes a lot of misconceptions. We never "pass" on a foul; we do however, judge some contact to be incidental, and thus a foul has not occured. That's where the phrase "A foul is a foul" comes in - it does not mean the same contact should be ruled a foul every single time. It simply means we never "pass" on fouls, even though we may rule contact to be incidental, and thus no foul occured.

Can you understand the difference?

My examples of "what if's" are very likely to happen in a game.

The contact by B1 on A1 is exactly the same, the immdiate result (the pass) is the same, yet in one example A has a distinct advantage and in the other A has no advantage.

Pass on the foul in the former, but do not pass on the later.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

My examples of "what if's" are very likely to happen in a game.

The contact by B1 on A1 is exactly the same, the immdiate result (the pass) is the same, yet in one example A has a distinct advantage and in the other A has no advantage.

You pass on the foul in the former, but do not pass on the later.

This is my whole point - the official does not pass on a foul. The official determines the contact to be incidental in one instance, but not incidental, and thus a foul, in another.

We are not disagreeing about the final result of each play. I am still trying to point out your usage of the terms, and the confusion it can cause. The definition of "foul" is specific - it is illegal contact. We all agree contact could be illegal in one situation, and the same contact be incidental in another. But we cannot determine the contact to be illegal in both cases, but call the foul in one and pass on the foul in another.

It's a subtle difference, but it is important in how you communicate with players and coaches.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This is my whole point - the official does not pass on a foul. The official determines the contact to be incidental in one instance, but not incidental, and thus a foul, in another.

We are not disagreeing about the final result of each play. I am still trying to point out your usage of the terms, and the confusion it can cause. The definition of "foul" is specific - it is illegal contact. We all agree contact could be illegal in one situation, and the same contact be incidental in another. But we cannot determine the contact to be illegal in both cases, but call the foul in one and pass on the foul in another.

It's a subtle difference, but it is important in how you communicate with players and coaches.

I think that telling B's coach that the contact in the first scenario was incidental, may get you into trouble when you call a foul on B for the exact same contact in the second scenario.

I always advise that I am not taking that advantage away from the other team and if the table were turned, they'll get the same benefit.

That approach has worked well for me.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

I think that telling B's coach that the contact in the first scenario was incidental, may get you into trouble when you call a foul on B for the exact same contact in the second scenario.

I always advise that I am not taking that advantage away from the other team and if the table were turned, they'll get the same benefit.

That approach has worked well for me.

I'm not worried about what the coach will say about two different scenarios. It may be the same contact, but it's obviously different plays, based on the fact you are ruling one to be incidental, and the other not.

Again, we agree on the basics that contact, based on different plays, can be a foul one time and incidental contact another. It's just that I've found there will be a lot less potential problems if we all use the proper terminology. We don't "pass on a foul", but rather "that contact was incidental", or "the contact did not cause a disadvantage" will get the same message across without having to explain a misconception.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not worried about what the coach will say about two different scenarios. It may be the same contact, but it's obviously different plays, based on the fact you are ruling one to be incidental, and the other not.

Again, we agree on the basics that contact, based on different plays, can be a foul one time and incidental contact another. It's just that I've found there will be a lot less potential problems if we all use the proper terminology. We don't "pass on a foul", but rather "that contact was incidental", or "the contact did not cause a disadvantage" will get the same message across without having to explain a misconception.

Good point....I agree.