Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by MJT
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
No, it doesn't. The play was an attempt to throw for a goal. The fact that he was fouled doesn't negate the attempt.
|
It did not meet the definition of a shot attempt! Read all of 4-40-2 which says "A player is trying for a goal when the player has the ball and in the officials judgement is throwing or attempting to throw for a goal.
|
...and he was attempting to throw for a goal. That's my judgment when I see this play. I judge that he was attempting to throw for a goal. that is in the definition of a shot attempt. It doesn't say that the ball has to actually head out toward the basket or the attempt is meaningless. It says "an attempt" which it was before it was rudely interrupted. Doesn't continuous motion apply here?
[Edited by rainmaker on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 06:25 PM]
|
I wish you had seen the play. The player consciously turned and passed the ball to a teammate. He did not attempt a goal, but I think he was when he "first" started his motion. I really wish you had seen the play. I described by demonstrating it to another official today and he said he would also had taken the ball OOB's. I wonder if you saw exactly what I saw if you would still say give 2 FT's.
Well, I am off to do a varsity G/B doubleheader. If I see the "exact same" thing 2nt, which is doubtful since this was the 1st I have ever seen like this, I will give them the ball OOB's.