Texas-Maryland Womens (Video)

[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.