Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]
|
1) What difference does it make what he intended?
We're not supposed to read minds. If he was trying to release the ball, and the defender got a hand on and prevented it, it's a held ball at that instant, regardless of what happened next. That is clearly the spirit of the rule.
2) And you haven't explained why you interpret "or" to mean "and" against all the rules of logic, language and common sense. [/B][/QUOTE]1)Yup, problem is though that the defender
didn't prevent the player from releasing the ball. The player
did release the ball. On a pass. If you're not supposed to read minds, then how do you completely, positively, 110%(that one's for Chuck) surely know that the player didn't want to pass in the first place? Personally, not being all-knowing, I am never that totally positive. Any doubt at all,.....
2) I interpret "or" to mean that the player was prevented from doing both acts. Iow, he couldn't shoot
or pass. Of course, I have to admit that I am not the cunning linguist that Chuck is.
I personally think that the spirit and intent of this particular section of the rule is to reward a defender for stopping an airborne player from making any kind of a controlled basketball play. If the airborne player can still play through a defender touching the ball and get a pass off before coming down, then I don't think that the defender ever had firm enough control of the ball to warrant a held ball. Jmo.