View Single Post
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 09, 2011, 08:25am
rwest rwest is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Suwanee Georgia
Posts: 1,050
Because the case book backs me up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
I'm just not sure why you think a different line of reasoning is required when the rule itself is very clear and basic. AP is one method, the last method, in the progression of the POI rule.
Case Play 4.19.8 Situation C

A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.

Ruling: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a TRY IN FLIGHT; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used.

The writer of the case book believes the POI is not the AP but the TRY IN FLIGHT!
__________________
Gwinnett Umpires Association
Multicounty Softball Association
Multicounty Basketball Officials Association

Last edited by rwest; Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 08:30am.
Reply With Quote