Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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 ... But I suppose the ball could just as well have become dead from the violation rather than the successful try.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... not to other violations, although the rule does include the words "such as" so you could extend it if you want ...

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Rule 6 - Section 7 Dead Ball Art. 9 . . . A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d below). Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap for field goal ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when: d. Article 9 as in 9-3-3, 9-11, 9-12 or 9-13-1, occurs by an opponent.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul? Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?

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.



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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

Low hanging fruit. Couldn't resist.

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

[SNIPERBBB]

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.