Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
The intent is to penalize a team who interferes with a ball when there's a possiblity there could be a basket.
|
Tony, I'm not trying to be a smart-@$$, honest. But how do you know that's the intent?
|
Because I live and breathe, my friend.
If we look at it from that angle, how can we ever determine intent? The NF expects us to be knowledgable of the rules and apply the penalty that fits the foul or violation. In this case, calling BI is not the correct penalty.
Quote:
|
A couple people earlier in the thread tried to say that the intent was to prevent interference with a try.
|
Well, we know that's wrong because of the throw-in situation. However, while the throw-in is not a try, it is a situation where a basket could be scored. A basket can never be scored by passing the ball through the underside of the rim.
Quote:
|
Just my opinion. Again, it's funny that we can't come to an agreement on this.
|
Well, it's my opinion that you're being overly legalistic on this interpretation. As I stated, there isn't a case play on this situation and I've never even read or heard it considered before. I don't beleive the NF has ever even consdiered the possibility of this being called BI.So, I guess we'll just differ on this one.
Maybe MTD can send it to Mary Struckoff.
