Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
In a whole bunch of years, I have never seen R2-3 used. That's because you can usually find an appropriate rule somewhere in the book instead. There are appropriate rules in the book to cover this situation, and Nevada has already cited them. Iow, you can't use R2-3 to over-rule another existing rule just because you personally don't agree with that rule.
You certainly could call "disconcertion" though if the defender's actions bother you that much. If the defender walks towards the FT shooter, it certainly sounds like disconcertion to me too. You still don't have rules backing though to "stop the play" until the FT shooter has been given a chance to legally try his FT....which is 10 seconds by rule(not custom)....if the defender doesn't actually interfere with the FT. Disconcertion is a judgement call, and therefore is defensible. Using R2-3 isn't defensible in this case.
|
JR,
The rule 2.3 reference was a side joke, I was not condoning over using it or not using other rules that cover a given situation. Do you have a sense of humor...let me know!