Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
If it is the only example that they suggest this is the case, then yes. If the intent was different than there would be many more examples wouldn't you think? And in multiple cases there are only one example of any interpretation.
Peace
|
The only thing I get out of the case is that if one of the participants in the double foul was an airborne shooter, since his foul is part of a double foul that it is not a player control foul, so the ball does not become dead. Therefore the shot can still count. It then proceeds to spell out what the POI is and how to proceed from there.
That's it. That's the whole case. Nothing about obligation to stick with any call based on any signal given or not given.
Anything else anybody gets out of this case, they either read/heard it elsewhere, or made up their own interpretation.