Questionable Call

[JohnDorian37]

So it seems that unless I rule the contact to be more than just a play on the ball, it's just a travel and no foul.

It makes sense to say that if the contact would have been just a regular personal foul had the ball still been live, and the defender was committed to the contact when the ball became dead, that it can't be an intentional foul.

[tref]

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

So it seems that unless I rule the contact to be more than just a play on the ball, it's just a travel and no foul.

It makes sense to say that if the contact would have been just a regular personal foul had the ball still been live, and the defender was committed to the contact when the ball became dead, that it can't be an intentional foul.

Cant speak for mbyron but I'm not saying that. If its excessive contact its got to be an INT (personal if live ball & technical if dead).

I've seen many plays where the defender chased down the break away & got ALL BALL, but pushed the would be dunker to the ground with his body... INT.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Cant speak for mbyron but I'm not saying that. If its excessive contact its got to be an INT (personal if live ball & technical if dead).

I've seen many plays where the defender chased down the break away & got ALL BALL, but pushed the would be dunker to the ground with his body... INT.

I'm trying to see where what I said contradicts this. Depending on those two criteria, it could be an intentional foul. If neither criteria is met, it's nothing. Nowhere did I say either was the "sole" criteria.

[tref]

You're right, my badd Snaqs!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

You're right, my badd Snaqs!

That's all I was asking for. I can go have lunch now.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's all I was asking for. I can go have lunch now.

I shudder to think what might happen if you tangled with somebody less agreeable. You could starve to death waiting for an acknowledgement that you were right.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

So it seems that unless I rule the contact to be more than just a play on the ball, it's just a travel and no foul.

It makes sense to say that if the contact would have been just a regular personal foul had the ball still been live, and the defender was committed to the contact when the ball became dead, that it can't be an intentional foul.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, I agree. If it wouldn't be an INT during a live ball, it wouldn't be an INT during a dead ball. The criteria does not change based on the status of the ball.

So, yes...travel, dead ball, contact is ignored (other than the usual game management you would employ after a player gets run over).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So, yes...travel, dead ball, contact is ignored (other than the usual game management you would employ after a player gets run over).

My game management recommendation is to wince and say "Ooooooooo, I'll betcha that smarts."

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

My game management recommendation is to wince and say "Ooooooooo, I'll betcha that smarts."

You forgot to make a bitter beer face. You're not believable without the bitter beer face.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

You forgot to make a bitter beer face. You're not believable without the bitter beer face.

Please note that the correctness of this statement does NOT imply that he is otherwise believable.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Please note that the correctness of this statement does NOT imply that he is otherwise believable.

If this were that other "geometry" thread, I'd restate that as "the converse is not (necessarily) true".

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

If this were that other "geometry" thread, I'd restate that as "the converse is not (necessarily) true".

How do you know he was wearing Converse?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

So it seems that unless I rule the contact to be more than just a play on the ball, it's just a travel and no foul.

It makes sense to say that if the contact would have been just a regular personal foul had the ball still been live, and the defender was committed to the contact when the ball became dead, that it can't be an intentional foul.

Correct...if it would have been a regular personal foul in absence of the travel, it will be nothing after the travel if the player didn't have time to avoid the contact after the whistle blew.