jar, let me ask this:
A1 tries to make a pass, but B1 gets his hand on the ball. A1's hand slips off, leaving B1 with the ball. The force being applied leads B1 to keep pushing against the ball, which is now pinned against A1's hip, knocking A1 to the floor.

PC foul?

I don't see it as a foul at all. Sounds like contact incidental to a legitimate play on the ball.

I happen to agree, but I'm not quite at my point yet.

Yet, what if B1 had slipped off the ball and pushed A1 to the floor due to the force and momentum from his play on the ball?

With An Iron Fist ...
 

Show me the videotape. Then I'll rule.

We're talking concepts here, Billy, there is no available tape.

I see your point, but I see this whole situation as totally different. If A1 originally has the ball, and B1 makes any play contacting only the ball, and in the process spikes A1 to the floor, I don't see a foul. If A1 has the ball, and uses it to deliberately contact the opponent, I see the ball as an extension of the hands and the result of the contact should be treated as such.

Check The Security Cameras, That's What They Always Do On Law and Order ...
 

Certainly an odd play, but in tens of thousands of games played each year, there has to be some tape. Everybody has a video camera these days, even if it's in a cell phone.

It's also not anywhere close to being a personal foul. ;)

Sure.

A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live.

Illegal contact is addressed under 10-6, where nothing defines contact as touching an opponent with the ball. All articles address illegal personal contact.

So are you saying it's a no call?



What exactly is personal contact, and where is it defined?

Yes. If an opponent puts a ball in my chest, I'm going to grab it. Whop thinks any player is not going to try to do that?


You can read all about illegal contact and how it involves contact with parts of the body on an opponent in 10-6.

Let me know when you get to the part that says contacting an opponent with the ball is defined as contact. :D

The ball is not an extension of the hands, and quoting a rule that describes what's "incidental" (10-6-2) doesn't change that. The case play says it's a T (or nothing) when the ball is thrown at an opponent; and there's nothing in the rules, anywhere, that differentiates between a thrown ball and a held ball as far as this play is concerned.

My point is, if intentionally shoving an opponent with the ball is an intentional foul, then accidentally doing it should be a regular foul.

A1 has the ball, guarded by B1. He pivots to pass, and in the process swings the ball around and hits (with the ball only) B1 in the shoulder, knocking him to the floor (A1 is sufficiently larger than B1 that this is not an unlikely scenario). B1 was entitled to his spot, and contact was purely accidental. If B1 had been hit with A1's forearm, it would be an easy PC foul.

Are you calling this PC?

I agree that any player would try to do that, but in this case he didn't, so it's a moot point.


Right, all except 10-6-1 which does not specify which part made the contact.
.....shall not impede the progress of an opponent by extending the arm(s).....
The contact in this example is often with the hands, or in one particular case, the ball.

Obviously, this issue is not directly addressed in any of the books, so one must interpret the available rules. I guess that's what we're doing.

Has this come up before? I seem to remember a play, here or in real life, where the thrower-in used the ball to back the defender off the line.

I don't see why not.

Well then, our disagreement is fundamental.

While I don't have it at my disposal, I do seem to remember an interpretation that supports JAR's point.