The casebook talks about a player "unintentionally" leaving the floor. In the first situation, I agree with most, it would be a no-call. If the player intentionally leaves the floor, at the least, a violation occurs.

I had a very amiable discussion (seriously) about this with a referee after a game. One of our players, in attempting to catch up to an overthrown pass, kept the ball inbounds, but his momentum carried him out of bounds. He was able to get back inbounds and retrieve the ball before any else could touch it. The referee called a violation. I was pretty sure it wasn't, but checked the rules and casebook at home later. The key, I think, is whether the player "intentionally" goes out of bounds.

At times I feel that the Tower Philosophy can be taken to the extreme. Here we have the D (B1) setting up in a legal guarding position to stop the advancement of the ball. Above that, she has shut down the lane that runs along the sideline. The O (A1) does not alter her path and makes contact. A1 has violated 10.6.2 “If a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight-line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, ‘but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble.”

Given the above we have A1 moving into B1 plane/space on the floor. She has not altered here path to avoid the contact. While one can say that such contact was not hard and yes Sven says “there is slight contact and a bump. B1 is not displaced” there is enough contact for A1 to loose control of the ball. Some have asked where is the disadvantage to B? My reply is why are we rewarding A for a clear violation of the rules? Rules that I may add, speak directly about trying to force ones way between the defender and sidelines or between 2 defenders. There-in is the advantage gained by the O.

We all are going to call a game in the way we have been trained, or based on our experiences, or lack there of. In my point of view the offence gets away with to much when we let them move into a defender that has every right to his/her spot on the floor. This to me is no incidental contact.

Though this play doesn't appear to put the defender at a disadvantage as the contact was slight, IMHO that truly isn't the case. The defender obtained legal guarding position and probably was attempting to draw the foul. The offensive player contacted the defensive player in a minor fashion, but contact occurred none the less. By rule this is a foul and the defender was put at a disadvantage. Why? Well if we don't call the foul and allow the offensive player to continue with the ball the defender is now in a disadvantaged position to defend the ball.

Agree??? Disagree???

Disagree. The rules require us to ignore incidental contact. Sven already said he judged the contact to be
incidental.

I love where this is going. I agree that the rulebook requires us to ignore incidental contact, however maybe I then need a definition of what incidental contact is. If you define incidental contact as contact that is unintentional or doesn't cause harm, then wouldn't that be the majority of contact? Most players don't intend to foul someone else on a shot...they are playing the ball. Most players don't intend to go over the back...they are trying to rebound. Do you see what I'm saying?

I do believe that the offensive player thought she could squeeze through this gap...and she very nearly did. At the same time she made contact and in my opinion it wouldn't be incidental as she intended to squeeze through no matter what the probability of her success would be.

I'm not picking on you Rich...just trying to understand your viewpoint and maybe get a better definition of what incidental contact involves.

Thanks...

Dave

If the defensive player was set up along the sideline and the player attempted to go where there was no room for her to go, she either caused the ball to be OOB or we have a PC. Reward good defense don't patronize a poor offensive decision.

Yeah, but the defender put himself there. If the dribbler was athletic enough to avoid the defender, with only minimal contact that does not displace him, why should the defender be rewarded? No whistle here.

Chuck

I think in this sitch chuck, the defender had good position along the sideline and the dribbler tried to go between the defender and the sideline in the process loosing the ball, creating "some" contact subsequently going around the defender OOB and then recovering the ball. I would have to see the play but would have a hard time calling nothing. Shouldn't we reward good defense here???

True Chuck...the defender put himself there and he was contacted, illegally, by the offensive player...slight as it might have been. This is good defense and I'm 100% inclined to agree with MN 3 Sport on this one. As for displacement, I don't think displacement is mentioned anywhere in the rulebook in regards to this situation.

Only if the ball actually goes OOB, or is touched by the dribbler before he/she returns inbounds. You don't reward somebody for just standing there. If standing there caused the dribbler to violate, then by all means award the ball. But as I said, if the dribbler is athletic enough to avoid contact and keep the ball inbounds, then you reward the athletic play.

Chuck

Incidental contact has nothing at all to do with intentional contact. Generally incidental contact is contact made by players who are in an equal position to perform normal offensive/defensive movement and doesn't leave one of them unable to perform normal offensive/defensive movement.

But the dribbler didn't avoid contact.

I guess we are all going to call this one according to our own beliefs on the interpretation of the rule. That is the wonderful/maddening thing about basketball officiating in that there is so much split-second interpretation that occurs during the course of a game. I can see why coaches get frustrated because one game your player gets that call, then the next game they don't. That doesn't make either ref wrong, it just means they have a different interpretation of the rules.

Thanks...

I agree that the contact is not incidental here. Contact is made trying to avoid a defender in good defensive position. On a drive to the bucket, no brainer PC. Why not here. Another thought (and a can of worms) is the player allowed to avoid contact by going OOB to avoid a defender??? I know none of us could call a T here but is this not leaving the court for an unauthorized reason??? If this was in the spirit of the game, we would have players streaking down the sidelinees OOB all the time to avoid screens and so forth....

SOOOOOOO....is this incidental or not? I would say no as trying to squeeze through a 1 foot gap is not normal offensive movement...at least its not normal without contact.

Sven already told us he judged it to be incidental so there ends that discussion.

Since when is a ball handler squeezing through a gap in the defense not normal offensive movement? Well, maybe not normal in that not everyone can do it, but why penalize athleticism?