Flagrant against shooter - 4 shots?

[Smitty]

Had an association meeting last night. The VP of the association goes over some "you make the call" plays. One play reads like this:

A1 steals the ball from B1 at the division line and drives for an uncontested basket. B2 runs after A1 and violently pushes A1 from behind as he/she is in the act of shooting. The ball: 1. goes in the basket or 2. does not go in the basket. You make the call.

So his answer for situation 2 is what I expect - count basket, 2 shots plus ball at spot of foul.

But his answer for situation 1 was puzzling. He says, and he claimed to have a Case Book play to back it up, was that, if the shooter missed the shot, he'd get 4 shots plus the ball at the spot. 2 shots for the miss, plus 2 shots for the flagrant. I didn't say anything because he said he had a Case Book play, and no one else said anything either, but I was definitely unsure that he was correct.

So today I try and find the situation in the Case Book - I couldn't find it. I did find it in the Simplified and Illustrated book on page 79 (10-6 Pen 4), which says very clearly that the shooter would get 2 shots whether the shot goes in or not.

Way to screw up an interpretation for the whole Association, Mr. VP. Well, there were only about 60 people out of 300+ there, but still.

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by Smitty
Had an association meeting last night. The VP of the association goes over some "you make the call" plays. One play reads like this:

A1 steals the ball from B1 at the division line and drives for an uncontested basket. B2 runs after A1 and violently pushes A1 from behind as he/she is in the act of shooting. The ball: 1. goes in the basket or 2. does not go in the basket. You make the call.

So his answer for situation 2 is what I expect - count basket, 2 shots plus ball at spot of foul.

But his answer for situation 1 was puzzling. He says, and he claimed to have a Case Book play to back it up, was that, if the shooter missed the shot, he'd get 4 shots plus the ball at the spot. 2 shots for the miss, plus 2 shots for the flagrant. I didn't say anything because he said he had a Case Book play, and no one else said anything either, but I was definitely unsure that he was correct.

So today I try and find the situation in the Case Book - I couldn't find it. I did find it in the Simplified and Illustrated book on page 79 (10-6 Pen 4), which says very clearly that the shooter would get 2 shots whether the shot goes in or not.

Way to screw up an interpretation for the whole Association, Mr. VP. Well, there were only about 60 people out of 300+ there, but still.

Missed the meeting - had a game last night.

I think you're 100% correct on this one Smitty. The difference is in the nature of the foul. If it was a common foul, the shooter would get either one or two free throws if the basket was respectively made or missed. With an intentional or flagrant foul, the shooter gets two free throws irregardless of whether the goal is made or missed, plus they get the ball back at the spot nearest the infraction. I can't find anything that would support the 4 free throw scenario on a single foul either......

[Smitty]

Originally posted by TimTaylor

Missed the meeting - had a game last night.

I think you're 100% correct on this one Smitty. The difference is in the nature of the foul. If it was a common foul, the shooter would get either one or two free throws if the basket was respectively made or missed. With an intentional or flagrant foul, the shooter gets two free throws irregardless of whether the goal is made or missed, plus they get the ball back at the spot nearest the infraction. I can't find anything that would support the 4 free throw scenario on a single foul either......

Yep...I emailed the VP this morning asking for the Case Book reference and telling him about the play I did find in the book. He emailed me back and admitted he goofed. Evidently Camron will be posting a correction on the website sometime soon.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by TimTaylor

Missed the meeting - had a game last night.

I think you're 100% correct on this one Smitty. The difference is in the nature of the foul. If it was a common foul, the shooter would get either one or two free throws if the basket was respectively made or missed. With an intentional or flagrant foul, the shooter gets two free throws irregardless of whether the goal is made or missed, plus they get the ball back at the spot nearest the infraction. I can't find anything that would support the 4 free throw scenario on a single foul either......

GRAMMAR POLICE! .....there is no such word

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Smitty

Yep...I emailed the VP this morning asking for the Case Book reference and telling him about the play I did find in the book. He emailed me back and admitted he goofed. Evidently Camron will be posting a correction on the website sometime soon.

At least he admitted his mistake. Some assignors (and officials) will go to the grave refusing to admit a mistake even if it's pointed out to them in writing. Although, you'd think that someone presenting to a big group would do a little more reference checking to make sure they got it right.

Z

[TimTaylor]

irregardless

adv : regardless; a combination of irrespective and regardless sometimes used humorously

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.

[Edited by TimTaylor on Feb 3rd, 2005 at 12:21 PM]

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by TimTaylor
irregardless

adv : regardless; a combination of irrespective and regardless sometimes used humorously

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.

[Edited by TimTaylor on Feb 3rd, 2005 at 12:21 PM]

I'll modify my remark as follows:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less

Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

nonstandard : REGARDLESS

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.

Use regardless instead.

[rwest]

2 entries found for irregardless.
ir·re·gard·less Audio pronunciation of "irregardless" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard

Regardless.


[Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.]

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

[Smitty]

Well this thread certainly went awry in a hurry...

[TimTaylor]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Smitty
Well this thread certainly went awry in a hurry...

Yea, but only because I wasn't here to respond to your post earlier. I've been to two meetings that he gave information that was simply false, or else was misunderstood by everyone. This makes three... that we know of. If he wins the same position again, someone needs to talk to him about his presentations. This isn't constructive!

[Smitty]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Yea, but only because I wasn't here to respond to your post earlier. I've been to two meetings that he gave information that was simply false, or else was misunderstood by everyone. This makes three... that we know of. If he wins the same position again, someone needs to talk to him about his presentations. This isn't constructive!

It definitely makes things confusing. When the person asked about the intentional fouls afterward, he initially said don't call an intentional and then Howard stepped in and said to definitely call the intentional. Makes your head spin.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Yea, but only because I wasn't here to respond to your post earlier. I've been to two meetings that he gave information that was simply false, or else was misunderstood by everyone. This makes three... that we know of. If he wins the same position again, someone needs to talk to him about his presentations. This isn't constructive!

By the way, I sent Howard an email asking him how we wants the situation, where a coach is ejected and there's no assistant coach available to take over, to be handled. He mentioned something about ejection reports last night, so I thought it was a good opportunity to ask. I need to learn to speak up at the meetings...

[SamIAm]

GRAMMAR POLICE! .....there is no such word

Irregarless of your opinion, I found irregarless in my Websters Collegiate Dictionary.

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by SamIAm

Irregarless of your opinion, I found irregarless in my Websters Collegiate Dictionary.

Here's a couple D's for ya!

d,d