let the play finish?

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

On these type of plays (rebounding plays) I've been told to only call a foul if:

1. There's possession consequence
2. To clean up rough play.

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

In 1, I would say that possession is a factor in judging advantage/disadvantage, but not necessarily determinitive.

In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

[tref]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

Like Ragu, its in there! 4-27-3

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

In 1, I would say that possession is a factor in judging advantage/disadvantage, but not necessarily determinitive.

In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

Credit to Snaqwells post 13:

4-27-3 should be taken into account:

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

If the player in question secures the rebound, and contact by the opponent didn't fold him in half, (clean up rough play) how was he hindered?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by KCRC

...
In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

That's the art of officiating, knowing how to properly incorporate this philosophy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

In 1, I would say that possession is a factor in judging advantage/disadvantage, but not necessarily determinitive.

In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

The rule talks about being hindered from performing normal defensive or offensive movements. We normally call that advantage/disadvantage, but often times we consider displacement to be sufficient. On rebounding situations, the idea is that in most cases, if the right player gets the rebound, it's incidental. OTOH, if the push moves the opponent too far off his spot....

How far is too far? That is a matter of judgment, and sometimes we have to adjust based on game circumstances.