Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
So I guess when A1 is fouled by B1 (non-shooting foul) and immediately A1 takes a shot that is "practicing" to most of you. I look at "practicing" during dead balls, as them running a quick layup drill or shooting FTs during a timeout. 2-7-4 does not even have a casebook play that backs this up.
Now my question is to the rest of you, if this rule is clearly stated in your mind, why would you not give the kid a T? You are convinced he violated something, why not a T? I personally think your interpretation is a stretch. I do not think the intent of the rule was to prevent every single dead ball shot. Especially when the kid did not run after the ball, then put up a shot. I have seen this a 100 times on TV or in an actual game I am witnessing, and not a single official seems to address it. I feel because it does not violate the "spirit" of the rule. The "spirit" to me would be when a kid going after the ball and the official clearly avoiding the officials orders or demands and shooting FTs. That did not happen, the ball came right back to A1 and it was described that he immediately put up a shot.
I just do not see the injustice.
Peace
|
It is not at all about that Rutledge. No one here has said they would have given a technical in the original situation. Common sense and, as you say, the "spirit" of the rule says you should just ask the kid not to do it again. What it is about, is you not knowing the rule. You said "But I would never T a kid for something not covered specificially in the rules like this. It just would not be good common sense." It most certainly is covered in the rules and needs to be so we would have reason to assess a technical if the player ignores our request to stop and continues to delay the game. Stop changing the subject and admit you didn't know it was a rule.
Peace.