Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Let me ask a question. Why should it have been intentional? I didn't see it, but nothing you wrote here indicates it should have been intentional. Unless the rules are different in California.  |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by caliref
Good question. I was asking it on behalf of my dad and brother that saw the play while I was cooking something and missed it. I told them I would ask for them to get some opinions. I didn't know either way.
|
A serious argument can be made for an intentional foul based upon the following which appeared in the rules book two seasons ago. The fouled player was airborne, was attempting a lay-up, and had his leg clipped by an opponent running in from behind. The player attempting to score was certainly in a vulnerable position. The debate will hinge upon whether the contact was excessive or not.
MEN'S AND WOMEN'S COMMITTEE ACTIONS FOR 2006-07 BR-19
Major Concern for Men
Airborne Player/Excessive or Severe Contact. When a player is airborne
attempting a lay-up, any excessive contact by an opponent shall be an
intentional personal foul, even when the opponent is legitimately attempting
to play either the ball or the player. When the contact is severe, a flagrant
personal foul shall be assessed.
The airborne player is in a position of vulnerability and any contact that
is excessive or severe shall be penalized.