Quick Question: Incidental foot in the D

I think know what you're trying to say, and if so, I agree. However, your current phrasing is incorrect as

So, unless someone actually disadvantages the other team (see the multitude of other threads as to what constitutes ad-/disadvantage), it cannot be a foul. Ergo ad-/disadvantage is THE determining factor in deciding whether or not play constitutes an offence.

Sorry alex, but Justin has said, there has been no offence at all. Therefore no FHA, PC. PS or anything
In fact the defence might sometimes gain an advantage.. but play on, still no offence.
Other than possible umpire lynching of course.

off topic: Anyone know how to set up the forum so we can see which topics have new posts, as previously?

Sorry degum but disagree with the last paragraph. If the defence gain an advantage it should be blown. For example a hard cross accross the circle is prevented from going dead by a defender's foot who is then in a position to keep possession and set up a counter- attack. Would you not blow that as an offence? However if the same senario is played by a defender and it then touches his foot, I agree there's no offence so play on.

My apologies, I was typing what I was reading, not what I was thinking! Meant to say that I let play carry on for defense who maintained possesion. As the ball hit his foot it didnt make it to the sideline so I allowed play to continue.

Would the defender not have gained an unfair advantage though?
Ball is going off at the sideline, where he will have a limited area of the pitch to play the ball and more attackers in front of him as they will have had time to reset. Whereas if he is allowed to play the ball where it has stopped due to hitting his foot, hes in the middle of the pitch, can play the ball left or right, and probably wont have too many people in his way so could even freely drive the ball up the middle himself.

Im not disagreeing with anything said BTW, im just trying to understand it myself incase im ever caught up in this situation

Sorry if my post seems a repeat, lots of people commented while i was typing and it doesnt tell you that anymore when you click 'post reply'

I completely agree that if you wouldn't award a FH in midfield, you shouldn't award a PC, but I believe that it has to be a FH. The defender is advantaged by getting the ball 'right now' in central field position, instead of getting a sideline hit in a few seconds, which would give the opposition time to set up a defensive press.

I honestly don't see how there's no offence here - am I missing something that everyone else is thinking?

The defender has stopped the ball with his foot, and in doing so, has gained an advantage (and therefore disadvantaged the opposition). Offence by the defender. It happens to be in the circle, so it's a PC.

To those who say that the defender hasn't 'voluntarily' stopped the ball with his foot, he's at least 15m from where the ball was hit, and one would assume he's watching the ball. Therefore he's had plenty of time to get out of the way, or use his stick to trap it... and because he's chosen to do neither, it's a voluntary (subtle difference from 'intentional') use of the foot. I know it's a horrible soft PC, but I honestly think that you have to give it.

I'm going to side with Bondy on this one, principally because of this:

Letting the defender play on is awarding bad skills in this case and soft or not, he is gaining suffçiant advantage to award a PC.

I would agree with Bondy, and would expect from an attacking and defensive point of view that a short corner is given. They didn't lift their foot out of the way, so is that not voluntarily leaving their foot on the ground? It is hard to say without being there, but the OP says "from the baseline, hit towards top of the circle". To be able to say that as the ball traveled from the top of the circle to the sideline, that a player from the attacking team would definitely not have regained possession is difficult. To me it is also a disadvantage to the attacking team not to be able to set up and defend a sideline hit compared to open play.

Maybe this should be another thread, but can you answer me this. An Attacker is dribbling towards the circle with 2 defenders in front. Defender A is just inside the circle, and Defender B is 3-4 yards behind Defender A. Now the attacker pushes the ball into the circle, and hits Defender A's foot, the ball carries on and Defender B rushes a clearance. However, if the ball had not have hit Defender A's foot, Defender B still would have got the ball, but with more time and in a better position. Is this a PC or play on? Judging by the reasoning above, it's not a voluntary foot and the defense would have gained possession anyway so it is play on.

What have I started...

Let's forget about what we think is fair and the world of advantage for a second and go back to the rule book and what constitutes an offence. The whole debate comes down to the following:

It depends if you consider the defender's action to be voluntary. I'm starting to wish that they'd got rid of the second part and just emphasized:

I think we should just hope that the defenders know how to trap!!

Incidentally - Diligent, I'm right with you that if the ball HAD gone out, it's definitely a sideline hit attack, because hitting the foot has led to the defender losing possession. I don't believe that there's any legitimate argument for PC in that situation... as opposed to when it stays in, there are two valid schools of thought (ie, PC or play on) - I'll argue black and blue that it needs to be a PC, but those who argue play on have also got a valid argument (just slightly less valid, IMHO )

My two pence worth is that the defender gained possession of the ball, which they wouldn't have had if it hadn't hit their foot. Yes the ball would have gone out for a hit in defence so possession hasn't changed by the ball hitting the defender's foot, but the defender has gained an advantage, which by definition means the other team has been disadvantaged then I'd give a PC.