|
|
|
Wed Mar 09, 2016, 07:58am
|
|||
|
|||
|
When in doubt the rules do have some logic built in. Why would you give Team B a designated-spot throw-in when Team B didn't do anything wrong?
__________________
"Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's only to serve as a bad example." "If Opportunity knocks and he's not home, Opportunity waits..." "Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?" "Not until 4." "The NCAA created this mess, so let them live with it." (JRutledge) 
|
|
Wed Mar 09, 2016, 08:50am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
|
|
Wed Mar 09, 2016, 09:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
SITUATION 3: While Al’s three-point field-goal attempt is in flight, A3 fouls B1 (B is not in the bonus) near the bottom block area. The three-point field-goal attempt is successful. RULING: Score the three-point goal for Al. Team B will be permitted to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. (5-7-7 Exp (2); 7-5-7)
|
|
Wed Mar 09, 2016, 10:48am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just a funny sidenote not having to do with the topic at hand. Sorry...
I have the Drumpfinator app for Chrome, which... if you don't know... changes the word "Trump" to "Drumpf" (you can look up the reason for that if you want) so the title of this thread read "Does 7-5-4 Drumpf 7-5-7?". 
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
