Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
JR it doesn't seem that you have a problem with the ruling given, but rather have a big problem with the Catawba people categorically stating that this action is not a try for goal. In other words they are removing a necessary element of judgment by the official as to whether this action was a pass or a try.
Oddly enough, you seem to being guilty of the same thing when you state "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo." I would rather see you not use that criterion, but judge each individual play on its own.
For example, consider the following play:
A1 drives the end line and reaches a position in the lane directly under the backboard when he ends his dribble. He spots teammate A2 open near the top of the key, so he jumps and throws the ball in that direction. The ball strikes the underside of the front of the ring and due to the change in direction sails past A2 and into the backcourt. A2 is then the first player to touch the ball.
Surely you would deem this play a backcourt violation, right?
|
What part of
"IN MY OPINION" did you fail to comprehend, Nevada.
Comprehension 101.
I said that it could be called
either. I also said that I, JR, would
personally call it a try and
NO backcourt violation. I don't have a problem at all with anybody else having a different opinion, and saying that in
their opinion, it wasn't a try and therefore it was a back court violation. I do have a major problem with the people at Catawba turning a
judgement call into a
non-judgement call though, which is what they are doing.
And your example is a
judgement call also, and could be ruled either way too. Why? Because maybe you are able to, but the majority of officials can't read minds.