Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
You are correct, the outcome of the shot does not prove anything. But proof is irrelevant. Only our judgment is relevant. And on those rare occasions where no incendiary devices are involved, how can you reasonably argue that a kid who makes a free throw was disconcerted? Like I said earlier, "I'm judging that the kid wasn't disconcerted if he makes the free throw. Once again, it's a matter of cause and effect, or no effect in this case." To judge otherwise is not only unreasonable, it is also irrelevant. Because if the kid makes the throw, disconcertion is ignored. So why would you judge otherwise?
Which leaves us with only one interesting judgment. If the kid misses, was he disconcerted? I still assert this judgment is entirely based on cause and effect, the opponent's intent is irrelevant.
|
It is obviously true that if the shot is good, disconcertion is irrelevant. BUT, by this logic, B1 does whatever on the first shot, which is good, which you say means no disconcertion. So now, on the second shot, B1 does
exactly the same thing, but the shot misses, you would say that it
is disconcertion? I say that if the violator is judged to have bad intentions, it makes this violation easier to call. But mainly I say the decision to make the call should already have been made before the result of the shot is known.