Jake Layman.....T or not ???? And don't forget the double dribble

[twocentsworth]

It was certainly a missed double dribble...
And it was a incorrect T - you are allowed to hang onto the rim if your momentum in completing the dunk swings you off balance. IF you pull yourself up - WHACK! That did not happen here.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

It was certainly a missed double dribble...

And it was a incorrect T - you are allowed to hang onto the rim if your momentum in completing the dunk swings you off balance. IF you pull yourself up - WHACK! That did not happen here.

You may wish to read the actual rule. Actually, you probably don't care.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Rich

You may wish to read the actual rule. Actually, you probably don't care.

OR...he's not actually an official and doesn't know what the rule book looks like.

[dahoopref]

Rule 10, Section 4. CLASS B TECHNICAL INFRACTIONS
Art. 1. A technical foul shall be assessed to a player or a substitute for the
following infractions:

e. Grasping either basket in an excessive, emphatic manner during the
officials’ jurisdiction when the player is not, in the judgment of an
official, trying to prevent an obvious injury to self or others.

In this fastbreak situation, the MD player does not know if another KU defender is coming from behind to block the shot. The MD player goes up to the goal strong, dunks it with 2-hands, and his momentum swings him forward.

IMO, the MD player needs to be given a chance to get his body vertical to land on the court on his 2 feet without injuring himself; only he would know what his body is capable to land safely. He didn't "chin-up", lift his knees emphatically, or rock back & forth multiple times; his arms stayed extended through one swing "to prevent an obvious injury to self or others."

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

In this fastbreak situation, the MD player does not know if another KU defender is coming from behind to block the shot. The MD player goes up to the goal strong, dunks it with 2-hands, and his momentum swings him forward.

IMO, the MD player needs to be given a chance to get his body vertical to land on the court on his 2 feet without injuring himself; only he would know what his body is capable to land safely. He didn't "chin-up", lift his knees emphatically, or rock back & forth multiple times; his arms stayed extended through one swing "to prevent an obvious injury to self or others."

His decision to hang on the rim and swing his legs up is what creates a potential danger. If he simply dunked the ball and let go of the rim, his body would never become parallel to the floor creating the potential danger.

I agree with the technical foul here.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

In this fastbreak situation, the MD player does not know if another KU defender is coming from behind to block the shot. The MD player goes up to the goal strong, dunks it with 2-hands, and his momentum swings him forward.

IMO, the MD player needs to be given a chance to get his body vertical to land on the court on his 2 feet without injuring himself; only he would know what his body is capable to land safely. He didn't "chin-up", lift his knees emphatically, or rock back & forth multiple times; his arms stayed extended through one swing "to prevent an obvious injury to self or others."

He looks right, then looks over his left shoulder because he didn't know if anyone had come up behind him there. Then he comes down.

The key word in the rule is "judgment" as it pertains to what is excessive and emphatic, and that's even assuming the official was 100% convinced he was not attempting to avoid injury to himself or others.

This incident was marginally excessive/emphatic, and I'm neither convinced now, nor was I convinced in real time, that the dunker wasn't trying to prevent injury to self or others.

I respectfully disagree with the call based on the wording of the rule.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

He looks right, then looks over his left shoulder because he didn't know if anyone had come up behind him there. Then he comes down.

The key word in the rule is "judgment" as it pertains to what is excessive and emphatic, and that's even assuming the official was 100% convinced he was not attempting to avoid injury to himself or others.

This incident was marginally excessive/emphatic, and I'm neither convinced now, nor was I convinced in real time, that the dunker wasn't trying to prevent injury to self or others.

I respectfully disagree with the call based on the wording of the rule.

I don't believe he was showboating....but devil's advocate here....If he simply dunks the ball and doesn't grasp the ring at all, none of this is an issue.

I can see both sides, but personally I didn't like the T here.

[JRutledge]

I did not like the T for this reason and this reason only. We see that all the time and no one has said that is something that needs to be called. Otherwise I can live with it, but would like to know if that is the standard. I see that dunk all the time and no one even the opponent bats an eye. But the double dribble is something I understand why missed as it is a quick steal. it should have been called, but I bet it was no easily seen.

Peace