Airborn Shooter

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick
The rule paxson ref doesn't deal with continuous motion. He cited Rule 4-40-2 which talks about "Shooting, Try, Tap." Continuous motion is 4-11.

He also said that the foul occurred on an act that WASN'T a try. How can a rule related to a try be relevant in any way at all to an act that isn't a try? That's where you guys are making absolutely no sense at all. You're saying it isn't a try, and then you go ahead and cite a rule about a try to back up your contention. How much sense does that make?

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Hold it right there. You just described a common foul above, as per R4-19-2. If you have a common foul, then the ball is dead immediately, as per rule 6-7-7. If the ball is dead, howinthehell can you now have a shooting foul AFTER the ball became dead?

I don't believe this is a common foul. 4-19-2:

"A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor part of a double, simultaneous or a multiple foul."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick

I don't believe this is a common foul. 4-19-2:

"A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor part of a double, simultaneous or a multiple foul."

Then exactly what kind of foul is it? You guys both said that it wasn't a "try", didn't you. Your exact words above are "I would also contend that the first time the player lost control of the ball, it ISN'T a try". So go ahead and tell me exactly what kind of foul it now is if it's not committed against a player making a try.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 28th, 2005 at 04:01 PM]

[LarryS]

Originally posted by zebraman
If you aren't leaving something out than I don't understand why this caused so much discussion in your association....

Z

I think we are seeing why there was so much discussion in his association

[Maverick]

The foul IS against a player making a try, it's just that the first time the ball was out of his hands wasn't a try. It is still a foul against a player attempting a try. The foul occured before the ball was in flight (for the try) and thus continuous motion applies.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Okay, fine. Next time say that, instead of saying you won't call a play by the book becuase it was such a great feat.

I have no idea what this means.

I work for 6 different assignors. Hey did you try jumping off the stool? If you're able to do it where do I send the cookies? LOL.

[Almost Always Right]

Good call Larry!

I contend that the rule that has to take precedence here is the airborn shooter rule.
All of this happened as he was an airborne shooter(rule was cited earlier). This sounds like a phenomenal play. We can't set aside a rule just because the play is out of the ordinary.
A similar play would be A1 going from the right side of the bucket with the ball in the right hand and doing a reverse lay-up on the other side of the lane with the left hand and in the middle getting fouled. What is the difference between these two plays?

What type of dialogue took place with the benches? and the table?
Just curious.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick
The foul IS against a player making a try, it's just that the first time the ball was out of his hands wasn't a try.

That might be just about the dumbest quote that I've ever seen on this forum. The foul that was committed knocked the ball out of the shooter's hands. Now, you're basically trying to tell me that a try isn't a try.

I don't think that I'm gonna try and argue with that kind of logic any longer.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Maverick
The foul IS against a player making a try, it's just that the first time the ball was out of his hands wasn't a try. It is still a foul against a player attempting a try. The foul occured before the ball was in flight (for the try) and thus continuous motion applies.

6-7-7 Exception-3

The try MUST BE CONTINUOUS.

It's NOT continuous if the ball is regained.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Almost Always Right

A similar play would be A1 going from the right side of the bucket with the ball in the right hand and doing a reverse lay-up on the other side of the lane with the left hand and in the middle getting fouled. What is the difference between these two plays?

How exactly is that similar in any way, shape or form to what we've been discussing? In your play, the ball wasn't knocked out of the shooter's hand with the foul, then recovered by the shooter and shot again. Apples and oranges.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Almost Always Right
Good call Larry!

I contend that the rule that has to take precedence here is the airborn shooter rule.
All of this happened as he was an airborne shooter(rule was cited earlier). This sounds like a phenomenal play. We can't set aside a rule just because the play is out of the ordinary.
A similar play would be A1 going from the right side of the bucket with the ball in the right hand and doing a reverse lay-up on the other side of the lane with the left hand and in the middle getting fouled. What is the difference between these two plays?

What type of dialogue took place with the benches? and the table?
Just curious.

A1 has CONTROL of the ball in that situation. It is continuous control and therefore CONTINUOUS MOTION.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

That might be just about the dumbest quote that I've ever seen on this forum. The foul that was committed knocked the ball out of the shooter's hands. Now, you're basically trying to tell me that a try isn't a try.

I don't think that I'm gonna try and argue with that kind of logic any longer.

Because the rule book states that the player must be throwing the ball toward the goal to be a try, as I referenced earlier. I see nothing in this case that states that the player lost control of the ball (the first time) because he was attempting to throw for a goal. The ball was lost because the defender knocked it out. A defensive player can't initiate a try.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick
[/B]

Because the rule book states that the player must be throwing the ball toward the goal to be a try, as I referenced earlier. I see nothing in this case that states that the player lost control of the ball (the first time) because he was attempting to throw for a goal. The ball was lost because the defender knocked it out. A defensive player can't initiate a try. [/B][/QUOTE]That's what I've been trying to get through to you. If this wasn't a try, then the foul that was also made when knocking the ball loose makes the ball dead immediately. If the ball is dead, then there can't be another, second try. I've also cited rules to back up everything that I've said. The only thing that you guys have cited is a rule related to a "try" that you're attempting to apply to something that you also say isn't a "try".

You guys have contradicted yourselves, and the rules, right from the git-go on this one.

[Almost Always Right]

I can understand your point however, I said it was a SIMILAR play, not IDENTICAL. The shooter is still in the air and still in the act of shooting, what does it matter if he bobbles, it gets knocked out of his hands or if he switches hands.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Maverick

Because the rule book states that the player must be throwing the ball toward the goal to be a try, as I referenced earlier. I see nothing in this case that states that the player lost control of the ball (the first time) because he was attempting to throw for a goal. The ball was lost because the defender knocked it out. A defensive player can't initiate a try.

This is simple, answer these two questions:

A1 goes up, B1 hits him, the ball comes out and A2 tips it in, does it count?

A1 goes up to tip the ball and is fouled by B1, on the way back down A1 tips it again and the ball goes in, does it count?