Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by MN BB Ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Or it's nothing.
Does the contact put the defender at a disadvantage?
Most of the time contact like this is rightfully called an out-of-bounds violation as the player with the ball ends up out of bounds.
Rich
|
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
Wed Feb 05, 2003, 11:21am
Hybrid Mode
