Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky
Wasn't the original premise that the discussion was surrounding a foul on the offense? And therefore, CM would not be relevant?
|
Continuous motion should never have come into this caseplay at all, not because the foul was by the offense, but because the ball had already been released (caseplay stated
airborne shooter and by definition an airborne shooter has already released the ball (thanks billyu2)), thus no continuous motion (continuous motion ends when the ball is clearly in flight).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I am not even sure when that came part of the discussion.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky
Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyu2
And if the try went in, it would count.
|
So we all know who to blame, here's where it all began to deteriorate and fall apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
If the ball was released before the foul.
|
Yep, we all know who to blame, BillyMac, because he didn't fully know the rulebook definition of an airborne shooter.
Sure, BillyMac is probably both extremely handsome and very intelligent, but he really needs to work on his Rule 4 definitions.