Texas-Maryland Womens (Video)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If she was losing her balance, it was because she was reacting to an defender cutting her off...anticipating/preparing the contact which did occur. I don't see that as a reason to ignore the contact by the defender. If not for the defender coming in like that, there wouldn't have been anything to talk about.

What the defender did was just silly. You don't guard like that. That's not LGP. Unless the dribbler runs into the back of a defender to try to get a call, I am calling this contact every time.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If she was losing her balance, it was because she was reacting to an defender cutting her off...anticipating/preparing the contact which did occur. I don't see that as a reason to ignore the contact by the defender. If not for the defender coming in like that, there wouldn't have been anything to talk about.

I think this is a dangerous line of thinking. To apply it to another situation say a shooter is going up with a shot and loses control of the ball on their own as they lose focus anticipating contact from an approaching defender. The defender then makes slight contact on the arm with the player who has already lost control of the ball. This contact is incidental and I'm not calling the foul. Would you award 2 shots in this situation? (I know it's hard to deal in hypotheticals but humor me)

IMO the same applies here. It does not really matter why the ball handler went down without contact b/c she did. And I think the slight contact by the defender here with a ball handler who had already lost her balance is incidental.

Originally Posted by AremRed

What the defender did was just silly. You don't guard like that. That's not LGP. Unless the dribbler runs into the back of a defender to try to get a call, I am calling this contact every time.

So now we are penalizing the defense for being silly? Got it.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

So now we are penalizing the defense for being silly? Got it.

I did not say that. I am penalizing the defense for contact causing the dribbler to go down. The contact is not incidental because the defender never established Legal Guarding Position, and as such is liable for the contact in this situation.

My comment still stands: it was silly for the defender to put herself in that position.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I did not say that. I am penalizing the defense for contact causing the dribbler to go down. The contact is not incidental because the defender never established Legal Guarding Position, and as such is liable for the contact in this situation.

My comment still stands: it was silly for the defender to put herself in that position.

What's the relationship between LGP and incidental contact? Your argument does not make sense to me?

Are you saying that when there is incidental contact you call it a foul if the defender doesn't have LGP. Because by rule, contact that is incidental is not a foul. Period.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

What's the relationship between LGP and incidental contact? Your argument does not make sense to me?

Are you saying that when there is incidental contact you call it a foul if the defender doesn't have LGP. Because by rule, contact that is incidental is not a foul. Period.

Not saying this couldn't be incidental contact in some eyes (I have a foul), but as every official should understand from a cursory reading of the rulebook is that the onus is on the defender to establish and maintain Legal Guarding Position if they don't want to be called for a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I think this is a dangerous line of thinking....

IMO the same applies here. It does not really matter why the ball handler went down without contact b/c she did. And I think the slight contact by the defender here with a ball handler who had already lost her balance is incidental.

That really isn't what I was saying. She went down due to the illegal contact. I was just describing why she appeared to be off balance, not that she fell on her own.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not saying this couldn't be incidental contact in some eyes (I have a foul), but as every official should understand from a cursory reading of the rulebook is that the onus is on the defender to establish and maintain Legal Guarding Position if they don't want to be called for a foul.

That's all well and good. I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind saying the contact isn't incidental because LGP wasn't established.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That really isn't what I was saying. She went down due to the illegal contact. I was just describing why she appeared to be off balance, not that she fell on her own.

Got it. We'll just agree to disagree. I think she went down because she lost her balance on her own. The anticipation of contact very well may be the reason she lost her balance on her own but IMO the contact itself did not.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That really isn't what I was saying. She went down due to the illegal contact. I was just describing why she appeared to be off balance, not that she fell on her own.

I agree with this. The more off-balance she - or anyone - is, the less contact they'll need to fall down. The fact the defender didn't have LGP doesn't help her (the defender's) cause in my eyes. Plus, when I see plays like this the scenario from the preseason video always pops into my head.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

What the defender did was just silly. You don't guard like that. That's not LGP. Unless the dribbler runs into the back of a defender to try to get a call, I am calling this contact every time.

We do not call fouls based on the evaluation or rating of their defense. They might have felt they were going to foul, but the BH decided to adjust and no one was there.

Peace

[Raymond]

A1 was falling on her own. As she was falling she then came in contact with the defender. I personally am not go to penalize the defender for that.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We do not call fouls based on the evaluation or rating of their defense.

I do. It's called "refereeing the defense".

You comment is inane. We literally call fouls based on our evaluation of legal/illegal defense.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I do. It's called "refereeing the defense".

You comment is inane. We literally call fouls based on our evaluation of legal/illegal defense.

OK, and if you look at the defender, the defender did not cause any contact. The contact that occurred appeared to be because the defender is falling already. And if you watch the defender, that is relatively obvious and probably why there was no call in the first place.

Peace

Originally Posted by VaTerp

That's all well and good. I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind saying the contact isn't incidental because LGP wasn't established.

I'm not saying there can't be incidental just because the defender does not have LGP, I am saying the contact in this play is not incidental due to contact being caused by the defender who was not in LGP. I know the rule, calling this a foul is a judgement call.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, and if you look at the defender, the defender did not cause any contact. The contact that occurred appeared to be because the defender is falling already. And if you watch the defender, that is relatively obvious and probably why there was no call in the first place.

Huh? The defender caused all the contact. The defender tried to cut off the dribbler and ran obliquely into the dribblers path, while never having established Legal Guarding Position. In my judgement, that is a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Huh? The defender caused all the contact. The defender tried to cut off the dribbler and ran obliquely into the dribblers path, while never having established Legal Guarding Position. In my judgement, that is a foul.

Whatever you say. I think the defender did not cause anything but force the BH to adjust. As I said before the BH looks like they were overcompensating because the defender was in their way and fell down. I am not asking for your agreement. And this is why it is called judgment and why we all get paid the big bucks to make these calls or decisions. I am just telling you what I saw when I watched the video. Nothing you have said has changed my original view of the play.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

What the defender did was just silly. You don't guard like that. That's not LGP. Unless the dribbler runs into the back of a defender to try to get a call, I am calling this contact every time.

Agree...i didn't mean to imply I thought it was not a foul, just describing the actions.

There was contact and it was illegal contact. A1 may have been a little off balance on her own but the defense finished the job. I previously said I had a block on this without hesitation.