Quote:
Whenever someone sidesteps a question I know not to expect anything more constructive than "that's just what needs to be called" with nothing to back it up in the way of logical argument or a rules citation. I know in my world if A1 unintentionally pushes B1 I have personal foul. If A1 intentionally pushes B1 I have an intentional foul. In your world, with no explanation (other than some stupid reference to elephants and tomatoes), if A1 intentionally pushes B1 with the ball you have a personal foul, and if A1 unintentionally pushes B1 with the ball you have nothing. But no one is supposed to question your logic. |
Quote:
No one's avoiding a question, when the question is based on weird hypotheticals. How did we go from player with ball uses ball to create separation to "what if the ball was blocked?" to "what if a player looses his balance and while falling makes contact with the ball and a defender?" to who knows whats next. You're overthinking something simple IMO. I don't see any difference when a player extends his arms to create space and he is either using his hands or his hands have a ball in it. |
A blocked shot is a play on the ball. The OP used the ball as an extension of the hand to make an illegal play.
As stated above, there is no comparison. |
Quote:
In your play, you are only calling a foul if it there was intent in using the basketball. If A1 displaces B1 with the ball, what does intent have to do with it? You are the one who brought intent into the conversation. So again, logic is not computing in your statement. Quote:
|
Because a blocked shot and using a ball to push an opponent are 2 completely different actions which have 2 different intentions.
1. The intent is to prevent a ball from entering the basket 2. The intent is to create space as to gain an advantage Intent doesn't dictate the foul, but a foul is caused because of a specific intent. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Until someone shows me a rule that says contact with the ball is the same as contact with any other body part, then I will stick to my position that this cannot be a player control foul. There is a reason we have a held ball over a foul. There is a reason that if you touch the ball on a out of bounds thrower it is treated differently than if you touch the thrower. We get on people often for making calls by making up their interpretation, well this is a the highest level of making up a rule to fit a logic. And once again, I do not see players trying this all over the place because they would get the ball stolen and the coach would ask them "Why did you do that, you lost the ball?"
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is an advantage not intended by the rule. If the player is using the loophole intentionally to gain an advantage, then close the loophole and call the foul. Like I said before, though, I can't imagine a situation where I see it so clearly I can tell his hand didn't make contact. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, I suppose. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The ball is singular and separate from the player. So that argument doesn't sway me. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09pm. |