Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Ummmm, yes? Yeah, yes, of course! But we were talking FED, weren't we?
|
But even in Fed, how could you justify awarding points when calling BI on something that was NOT a shot attempt?
|
In Chuck's defense(and Lord knows I don't do THAT often
),the language in the NFHS rulebook doesn't explicitly cover this particular play.The language DOES suggest that the criteria needed for BI might be satisfied,even though the ball is going up in the basket,rather than coming down.I really think that you have to envision the spirit and intent of the Goaltending and BI rules to get this one right-in the absence of a definitive case play.The rules for BI and GT,I believe,were put in to stop players from preventing a goal that was possibly about to be legally scored,or to stop players from aiding the ball to go through their basket(i.e. scoring a goal) when it might not do so without their help.The definition of a goal is a live ball that enters the basket from ABOVE,and then goes through.Coming from below,you can never meet that definition--because if it does clear the ring from below,it's an immediate violation.Just seems like common sense to me.You don't want to award something that the offended team could never have attained anyway.
Even in the NCAA rulebook,they put the violation and penalty in with the BI definition,even though it doesn't carry the normal BI penalty if the defense commits the infraction.It probably should be called something different there too,to avoid confusion.
[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 1st, 2003 at 02:11 PM]