Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Quote:
Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
Rut: this is the second time you have linked the definition of successful goal with basket interference. That is faulty reasoning. They are two mutually exclusive rules. Let me explain the Technicalities.
|
I think you need to go back and read this entire discussion. It is clear you are not reading the entire discussion. I have in no way linked anything together. I just stated that BI could not be the call because no parts of BI took place on the dunk. The ball just did not go completely through the basket and a goal cannot be scored by rule if the ball does not go through the net.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Peace
|
Rut,
Before you read the rest of this post I want you to know am satisfied that you meant to say there was an ALTERNATE ruling that better fit what happened on the play other than BI. The above wording shows you are having two separate trains of thought. 1.) Not BI because... AND 2.)Not a goal Because...)
Forgive me if I was being too grammatically correct. When paragraphs are constructed correctly the sentences agree with each other. The first sentence usually sets the theme of the paragraph and any following sentences linked to it modifies the theme.
Example:
In your 1st post; "This is not BI. The goal was not completed as of 4-41 (NCAA of course)."
In your 2nd post : "It couldn't be BI. The ball did not go through the hoop."
In your 4th post (to Jurassic) "But that could not be BI by rule. The ball never completely went through the basket."
There is a cause effect relationship by the structure of these sentences. You linked "not going through the basket" as the reason not to call BI.
Additionally, the title to the thread is GREAT OFFENSIVE BI CALL IN DUKE GAME. This implies that the thread starter believed that Basket interference WAS what the referees ruled. I read your posts to mean that the officials were wrong to call BI and the only reason you were giving is BECAUSE you said the ball never went completely through the basket. Only when Nevadaref said BI was not what they ruled did I start to surmise you comments were two separate thoughts. Then Jurassic and others quote referee Kitts who said he did call BI. Now I am thinking you were confused again. So I posted again in hopes you would clarify your statements.
Thank you for doing so. I am on the same page as you are in this matter.
PS. As Nevada pointed out I just wish I hadn't lost my "s" when I spelled Kitts' name in an earlier post.