Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco
I did re-read what you wrote. And this:
reads to me like a blanket judgment based solely on where the ball is, not on the intent of the defender, which is what the rule calls for.
|
I said who gets the benefit of the doubt, I didn't make a blanket judgment. I even used the word "benefit" in the post, so I'm really not sure how you misinterpreted it.
I know what the rule says, I'm just saying how I'm going to officiate it and what criteria I'm going to use when making my judgment. Since the defender isn't going to telegraph his intent to me, I have to judge by the circumstances (ie, where the ball is, where the shooter is, how long the defender had to react, etc). Since I've never seen a shot blocker not pay attention to the ball, I just find it hard to believe the OP would happen without intent from the defender.