Gonzaga vs Duke Push with ball (Video)

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Oh, so now intent matters? If A1 loses his balance and in the process sticks the ball out and accidentally knocks down a defender, it's not a foul?

You are really working hard to come up with crazy hypotheticals to prove your point. I say tomato, you say elephant.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

You are really working hard to come up with crazy hypotheticals to prove your point. I say tomato, you say elephant.

You are coming up with your all too common ways of avoiding the question.

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know in my world if A1 unintentionally pushes B1 I have personal foul. If A1 intentionally pushes B1 I have an intentional foul.

So to be clear when a player that is crowded pushes a defender, or even when an offensive player goes for a layup and uses the off hand to clear away the defender you are calling that an intentional foul? both are intentional pushes, and you don't just call a PC foul but you go big ol X over your head?

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

So to be clear when a player that is crowded pushes a defender, or even when an offensive player goes for a layup and uses the off hand to clear away the defender you are calling that an intentional foul? both are intentional pushes, and you don't just call a PC foul but you go big ol X over your head?

....

If he uses the off-hand to clear out, I'm calling a foul whether it was done intentionally or not.

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.

Originally Posted by deecee

Comparing a blocked shot to a willful use of the ball to cause displacement is 2 completely different actions and cannot be compared.

[deecee]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

Displacement is displacement. If A1 displaces B1 with the ball, intent should not dictate whether or not you call a foul. If A1 accidentally displaces B1 with the ball why would it be any less of a foul?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Displacement is displacement. If A1 displaces B1 with the ball, intent should not dictate whether or not you call a foul. If A1 accidentally displaces B1 with the ball why would it be any less of a foul?

If your argument is that a player holding the ball and using that to cause displacement versus a player who blocks the ball and the ricocheting ball hits and opponent and causes displacement is the same thing then we are to far apart for me to find any common ground on this issue with you. Which is a perfectly acceptable position I think.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Displacement is displacement. If A1 displaces B1 with the ball, intent should not dictate whether or not you call a foul. If A1 accidentally displaces B1 with the ball why would it be any less of a foul?

Here's the most cogent argument I can come up with for that position.

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.