Intentional Or Flagrant ...
 

Since the goaltend made the ball dead, wouldn't the player control foul have to be intentional or flagrant to not ignore, and thus technical?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=217&h=164

Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.
 

My suggestion to the rules committee for clearing this all up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree the goal tending causes the ball to become dead (exception 4 applies to swinging the elbows and to leaving the court, not to other violations, although the rule does include the words "such as" so you could extend it if you want).

Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).

So, enforce the violation and the foul.

Good point. Normally we think of such a foul as occurring after an apparently successful try, such as on a tomahawk dunk with an LGP defender under the basket (still no RA in NFHS). But I suppose the ball could just as well have become dead from the violation rather than the successful try.

So I guess my editorial suggestion above may not be necessary after all.

Always listen to Bob.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dunkin' Donuts ...
 

crosscountry55: Great example. Thanks.

Successful dunk causes the ball to become instantly dead, dead as a doornail, no pulse, but we still penalize the player control foul even though it may not be intentional nor flagrant.

Applicable Rule Language ...
 

I probably agree with bob jenkins in theory (intent, purpose), but I'm unable to find the language "such as" in any applicable rule. Please cite.

How To Safely Handle A Zombie ...
 

Like opponents, one from each team?

Sorry -- I misremembered "as" in 6-7-Excp d as "such as" when I was typing. Should have brought my books from the library to the computer.

Needs A Deep Dive Study ...
 

Although I haven't given it much of a deep dive study, I kind of like crosscountry55's idea.

Unfortunately, it's still just an idea and not yet applicable to the kerfuffle ruling in the current casebook play.

Thus, I stand by my questions regarding this casebook ruling:

While there are rule exceptions to a ball not becoming dead right away, thus delaying death, I'm not aware of any rule exception that resurrects a doornail dead ball and making it to become alive again.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.d...=0&w=315&h=177

Also need a rule exception for this (I don't believe that there's currently an exception in the rulebook for this):

Sorry Guys ...
 

Low hanging fruit. Couldn't resist.

Black Friday is coming up. Amazon is gearing up to deliver.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/1c...57aac63a02.jpg

As a possible rule change, one could argue that a PC foul on an airborne shooter occured the moment the shooter left the ground (all the elements of a PC foul sans the resulting contact have already occurred unless the would be offended player or another defender bails the shooter out by committing a foul on the shooter first). So retroactively the PC occurs first negating the goaltend.

None. And it's not needed. You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. (I'm shocked! Shocked! to find out that this is true!)

The goaltending made the ball dead. You can still have a PC foul after the ball is dead. Enforce both, in the order they happened. That's the point of the case play.

Yes But ...
 

Yes but (an official's famous, or infamous, last words) aren't we supposed to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it's intentional or flagrant?

If the caseplay is the only citation (explanation, rationale) for this ruling, I can live with that, but would prefer to also have a rule language citation as well.

Bingo ...
 

We have a winner.

4-19-1-Note: Contact after the ball has become dead is incidental unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

Why did it take so long for us to come up with this citation?

Also takes care of crosscountry55's dunk and charge situation.

Now we can all sleep peacefully tonight with visions of turkey legs and pumpkin pies in our heads knowing that all in the basketball officiating universe is copacetic.

I already knew it and was wondering what the big deal was.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk