|
Doesn't Have To Be A Try ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
4.19.6 SITUATION A: B1 obtains a legal position in A1’s path before A1 becomes airborne. A1 jumps and releases the ball on a try for goal. Before returning to the floor, airborne shooter A1 charges into B1. (a) Before the foul by A1, B2 commits basket interference; or (b) after the foul on A1, B2 slaps the ball on its downward flight. RULING: In (a), both the violation and the foul are penalized. The basket interference by B2 causes the ball to become dead immediately. The violation is penalized by awarding the two points. The player-control foul on A1 is also charged. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. A defensive-goaltending or basket-interference violation committed prior to a player-control foul does not contradict the general statement that when a player-control foul occurs that player cannot score. In the case of a defensive violation, it is the violation which results in awarding the score. In (b), the ball becomes dead and the try ends immediately when the player-control foul on A1 occurs. The action of B2 is ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended. The ball is awarded to Team B for a throw-in from a designated spot out of bounds closest to where the foul occurred. (4-12-1, 6-7-4, 6-7-9 EXCEPTION, 7-5-4a, 9-11)
|
It's interesting that the NFHS made (b) a goaltending situation (which must involve a try).
What if (b) had been a basket interference (doesn't have to be a try) situation?
Same ruling with a different rationale?
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Last edited by BillyMac; Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 03:16pm.
|