Quote:
Originally posted by tomegun
JR, I'm sorry you are getting tired of hearing it but the term "game interrupter" is something that is relevant right now for basketball. Everyone wants to have this huge gap between HS and college ball when it just doesn't always exist. I live in an area where some HS leagues are better than some college leagues I do. The rules aren't that much different so why should I approach the game so different? Constantly having "and one" plays in HS and/or college are game interrupters. It kills me when someone wants to constantly count the bucket but doesn't know when a player is gathering to shoot a foul should be a shooting foul all of the time. There is no difference in this rule between HS, college and the NBA.
|
Lah me.
Forty-five years ago when I was a baby starting out, I was told not to call "cheap fouls". I asked whatinthehell a "cheap foul" was. The reply was a foul that didn't affect the outcome of the play- in the judgement of the official who had jurisdiction of the call.
Forty-five years later, all I hear is clinicians rambling on about stuff like "game interrupters" like they were just personally responsible for discovering the meaning of life. Well, in my case, all they are trying to do is teach an old dog old tricks. This ain't a new concept at all, folks. Been around forever- under different names.
It kills me when someone simply changes the vernacular of an long-time accepted recommendation on how to call the game, and then tries to take credit for it by intimating that it's something new and revolutionary. That my point, not that "game interrupters" by that particular name or any name are wrong or bad. Obviously they aren't.
See where I coming from now, Tom?
Btw, just as obviously, my own personal opinion is that if a defender physically displaces an airborne shooter and then knocks him on his a$$, it's a foul. Even in the....wait for it....SEC.