Kentucky officials instructed to "tighten up" the game

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I agree with this, the point was there is a rule that indicates if a player is able to play through contact, it's likely not a foul.

Partially agree. However, if the contact makes it distinctly more difficult to play, even if the ball handler is able to power through, it should still be a foul. That is where the game gets too rough.

For a while, there was a movement around these parts that basically frowned upon And-1's. The argument was that if it went in, it must have not been a disadvantage. I never liked that argument. To call a game that way leads to substantial contact not getting called if the shooter is lucky and it goes in anyway which only causes the players to get frustrated and to escalate in response. Luckily, that pendulum has come back to the center....not every contact is an and-1 (and it shouldn't be) but it isn't a bad thing to call a foul either when the player clearly and obviously gets hit.

The fact that a player, with exceptional effort, is able to play through isn't really a good reason to not call a foul. The reason to not call the foul was that the contact really wasn't that much and had no effect (include extra exertion by the opponent).