Mon Oct 24, 2005, 02:25pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,847
|
|
|
Re: The mere act of going in early
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by jritchie
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by jritchie
if i have someone come into the lane from defense, and A1 throws up an airball, you could have a good arguement for disconcertion, you think!!!! i know the coach will probably be pushing for it....i give them the benefit of the doubt and give them another shot.. 
|
If B enters the lane early, it's a violation -- A gets another shot (if the first one missed).
If you call it "disconcertion", it's a violation -- A gets another shot.
There's no difference.
If the "obvious" call was the lane violation, just call that one and don't worry about what might have been disconcertion.
|
I was talking about if B enters lane and A throws up air ball.... it was said that it should be a double violation!! in our state clinic, it was said to call disconcertion just to be safe, because we don't know for sure if B violating caused the second violation airball or not!! that is all i was saying...
|
The mere act of B1 going in early is not disconcertion. Airballs from the foul line, except at the lowest levels, are rare. If you get the delayed violation signal up, be careful not to look directly at the shooter, who might misunderstand and throw the ball back to you. The ultimate airball . . . and, unfortunately, you had a role in it . . .
|
Airballs aren't that rare. You're kidding about not looking directly at the shooter, right? The lead shouldn't be looking at the shooter anyway.
|