MrDollarBills wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:MrDollarBills wrote:Not good. Phee is probably done for the rest of the playoffs and Unrivaled season.
Nope not good, and the idea that there was no foul on the play is just crazy.
I think you actually argue they should have called a foul in Phee before the steal for holding AT, and I don’t think what AT did was dirty, but she basically changed direction and ran through Phee as she reached for the (clean) tip.
I understand the idea of it being a loose ball situation - the tip came first - but when you let a bigger stronger player do that without consequence, it’s a recipe for them causing injury to others.
Then you add on top of that that that Phee literally could have fouled out in that play, but she shot no free throws the whole game, while being less physical than the other team is wild.
As I say all of that, AT just seemed to outfox Phee on the regular in the matchup. Steal after steal, it was incredibly impressive. I feel like AT is the smartest player in the W.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that this is incidental contact. The steal was clean. I don't see how Thomas can avoid any of what happened as she was making a direct play on the ball.
I appreciate your response, and this is something I put a good amount of time thinking about and talking to people about.
I take back my statement that there should have been a foul called. By officiating norms, this was a legal play by AT - as well as an extremely impressive play. She so adroitly slide laterally that she was able (reach across Phee's body!) to poke the ball away cleanly before making any other contact with the offensive player, and then she pursued the loose ball perfectly, etc.
But it concerns me that this is the case, and I think the term itself that everyone is using "incidental contact", lets us zoom in very precisely on the issue.
If I go to Merriam-Webster, their 2nd definition of "incidental" is:
2 : occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation
This is what I think the basketball world is saying AT's action was, and because it was without intent to injure, it is not worth getting in a tizzy over.
But what's the 1st definition?
1 : being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence
I would argue that actually under both definitions, AT's action was incidental, except for the whole "minor" assumption of consequence, and that's the problem.
The reason why AT's leg hit Phee's leg is because AT changed her direction of motion when she went for the steal and then continued forward from there into Phee.
Did AT know that by changing direction she was putting herself at a greater chance of collision when she did this? Absolutely.
Did AT know that she was bigger and stronger than the other person and she'd maybe be able to plow through the other person and keep going? Prolly.
But did she break the rules based on norms of interpretation? Apparently not.
Would she have been able to get the loose ball as easily if she'd look to avoid the collision? Nope.
So what's the incentive for AT to avoid running through an opponent in this circumstance? Nothing.
As far as I can tell much of the counter-argument amounts to say that the odds of this are low enough to be consider a "fluke" and thus not something worth considering in officiating norms, and that's the NBA/WNBA's choice to make, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that we can tell when actions are taken that up the likelihood and violence of collisions, and if we aren't incentivized against them, then we're incentivizing stronger players to use this physical advantage they have like they would any other.