Stoudemire's blocked shot

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

I hope this would only happen in some men's rec league game somewhere, which is why I don't do rec leagues anymore.

I call BI, give 2 points to the opponent, and give it back to the player's team for a spot throw-in.

Then we will shooting T's somewhere, I'm sure of it.

Who cares where it happens.

I'm just interested in hearing what he has to say on this play based on his interp of the rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

What if the player attempts to dunk the ball in his opponent's basket?

BI?

Or nuthin'? [/B][/QUOTE]You have a warped l'il mind, Slappy.

The rule EXCEPTION of R4-6 can't apply because it's not a try- therefore it ain't a dunk attempt.

Ergo, if the player tries to dunk it in his opponent's basket, it should be BI as per R4-6-2 and the opponent gets 2 points. It doesn't have to be a try to be penalized- as pointed out in case book play 9.11.2SitC.

What if..... an opponent tried to block that un-dunk attempt at his own basket and both player's hands then entered the cylinder at the same time while contacting the ball?

Double violation- AP?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

You are correct.

Obviously I don't agree.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

The popcorn guy?

ROTFLMAO! Nice.....

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

What if the player attempts to dunk the ball in his opponent's basket?

BI?

Or nuthin'? [/B]

You have a warped l'il mind, Slappy.

The rule EXCEPTION of R4-6 can't apply because it's not a try- therefore it ain't a dunk attempt.

Ergo, if the player tries to dunk it in his opponent's basket, it should be BI as per R4-6-2 and the opponent gets 2 points. It doesn't have to be a try to be penalized- as pointed out in case book play 9.11.2SitC.

What if..... an opponent tried to block that un-dunk attempt at his own basket and both player's hands then entered the cylinder at the same time while contacting the ball?

Double violation- AP? [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't care about the exception, I already have "a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder..."

A player had his/her hand on the ball when it legally entered the cylinder. Why BI?

/edit: I forgot to mention BI does NOT require a try anyway/

btw I was thinking more in terms of the player slamming the ball off the back of his opponent's rim. 2 points for his opponent? Or nuthin'?

Or this: B1 jumps and grabs A1's air ball after it passes over the cylinder. B1's momentum carries the ball back over the cylinder and he lands.

BI and 2 points for A?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

There's no way to logically not take it that way imo.

I very respectfully submit that is b/c you've never taught a logic class. The two statements have no logical connection, as written. If you're trying to judge the intent of the rules committee in your interpretation, that's a whole different kettle of fish. But as written all it says is you can maintain contact if it starts outside the cylinder and also that dunking is legal.

Suppose I said, "Dan and Woody may each have a piece of fruit, and Woody may have an orange." By your interpretation, you'd have to conclude that Dan's not allowed to have an orange. But really, that doesn't follow at all. All I've said is that you can each have some fruit, and I've clarified that you're allowed to eat the orange.

The rule EXCEPTION of R4-6 can't apply because it's not a try- therefore it ain't a dunk attempt.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there Tex!! Where in the world does a try fit in here? There's nothing anywhere in 4-6 -- including the EXCEPTION -- that mentions a try. Maybe this is the root of your whole misunderstanding. This rule and its exception never require that they be applied during a try.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Obviously I don't agree.

Just as obvious: you are alone in the universe!

[refnrev]

OK, I know this was NBA which leaves nearly anything open to interpretation.... But if this had been a game with Fed rules, from my perfect angle in my very comfortable chair I had the block clearly beginning before the ball was in the cylinder. How could you have BI? It looked like a clean block to me -- which by the way I hated because I am a Spurs fan!

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by refnrev
OK, I know this was NBA which leaves nearly anything open to interpretation.... But if this had been a game with Fed rules, from my perfect angle in my very comfortable chair I had the block clearly beginning before the ball was in the cylinder. How could you have BI? It looked like a clean block to me -- which by the way I hated because I am a Spurs fan!

Being a Nash superfan, I think you have nothing to complain about.

Yet.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by refnrev
from my perfect angle in my very comfortable chair I had the block clearly beginning before the ball was in the cylinder.

The question is: assume that the ball is already touching the cylinder when the defender touches the ball. What do you have then?

[refnrev]

Am I for the team making the dunk or the opponent?... Just kidding. Based on your question, I'd say, if I get it right, BI. If I miss it, GT.

[refnrev]

[/QUOTE]

Being a Nash superfan, I think you have nothing to complain about.

Yet. [/B][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _________

Nash sure looked better in a Mavericks uniform!!!!!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
I think the rules are trying to list two different scenerios - 1)a player (not specifically offense or defense) maintaining contact with the ball into the cylinder, and 2)dunking is legal. Obviously they added dunking because the act, in itself, is BI, and the game has changed to allow that act. If all they wanted to address was the offense and dunking, I think it would've been included as a single exception, not two different exceptions.

I think you're giving the Fed way too much credit. It appears as though they once again haven't thought the whole thing through clearly. They had enough whatever to get the rule written adequately for dunking, but it didn't occur to them to consider any other meaning their words might have. Maybe that's unfair of me, but if they thought about defensive BI in the manner we're discussing, why not mention it one way or the other, or at least have a case play? I think they just didn't think about it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I think you're giving the Fed way too much credit. It appears as though they once again haven't thought the whole thing through clearly. They had enough whatever to get the rule written adequately for dunking, but it didn't occur to them to consider any other meaning their words might have. Maybe that's unfair of me, but if they thought about defensive BI in the manner we're discussing, why not mention it one way or the other, or at least have a case play? I think they just didn't think about it.

I'm not sure it's an issue of thinking through things, but more like an issue of not writing down every little possible scenario. Who would've thought back in JR's day there would be dunking? As plays and things become more prevalent, they address those issues with rules and cases. So that's probably why they don't have any case plays covering this yet, because I'm not sure before last night there were many people that have seen a similar play. But as players become more athletic and skilled they will probably have to address this in the future.

Now, I know I'm simply guessing here, but I wonder if the advantage/disadvantage theory would come into play somewhat. Using the same theory on a 3-sec. call - if an offensive player gets "trapped" in the lane by the defense, and is making an effort to get out, I would not call a violation. Similarly, if the offense caused the defender's hand/arm to enter the cylinder and there was already contact on the ball, I can't see penalizing the defense. However, if the defense puts their hand/arm in the cylinder on their own before contact with the ball, that seems more likely to be a violation. Now I know that's reading a lot more into it than what's written, but it seems a practical alternative and easier to explain, until there is specific direction from the NF and NCAA.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

I'm not sure it's an issue of thinking through things, but more like an issue of not writing down every little possible scenario. Who would've thought back in JR's day there would be dunking? As plays and things become more prevalent, they address those issues with rules and cases. So that's probably why they don't have any case plays covering this yet, because I'm not sure before last night there were many people that have seen a similar play. But as players become more athletic and skilled they will probably have to address this in the future.

Now, I know I'm simply guessing here, but I wonder if the advantage/disadvantage theory would come into play somewhat. Using the same theory on a 3-sec. call - if an offensive player gets "trapped" in the lane by the defense, and is making an effort to get out, I would not call a violation. Similarly, if the offense caused the defender's hand/arm to enter the cylinder and there was already contact on the ball, I can't see penalizing the defense. However, if the defense puts their hand/arm in the cylinder on their own before contact with the ball, that seems more likely to be a violation. Now I know that's reading a lot more into it than what's written, but it seems a practical alternative and easier to explain, until there is specific direction from the NF and NCAA.

Of course, you're right about the sequence of how the thoughts occurred. They were addressing the stuffing and not the defensive contact with the stuffed ball, becuase, as you point out, that had probably never happened. Jurassic is reading that clearly into the rule as written, and it's one reasonable interpretation. But there could easily and reasonably be other interps, as others have pointed out, and that ambiguity needs now to be addressed. At least in the NBA and NCAA. Practically speaking, we're not going to see a lot of this in the NF for a while, I don't think. When my 6th grade girls games begin with a description of the stuffing and dunking exception and how it applies to the defense, I'll write a letter to the rules committee to get them off their duffs and get to work!