![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
I do, however, agree that the way the rule is written allows differing opinions. And I don't think it will happen very often (I've never seen what I would rule intentional contact by an AS or on an AS), I will call an AS, for example, who forcefully uses his hand to the face of an opponent for no reason as an intentional or flagrant foul if it meets the requirements of those rules otherwise. |
Quote:
You're wrong in calling this particular foul as being a technical foul, and calling this play according to your interpretation could possibly be a factor in a game. Giving a defender a "T" for intentional contact on an airborne shooter when the ball was dead instead of giving him the intentional personal foul that the rule calls for could possibly mean the ejection of that player for getting a second technical foul. |
Quote:
Again, I don't believe the committee intented to 1) make a distinction between intentional or flagrant contact on or against an AS and 2) insert the last phrase in 4-19-5-c to exempt dead ball intentional or flagrant contact from being a T under that condition, but rather to make it clear that contact against an AS was to be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. |
Quote:
I also give up. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." See also 4.1.1 - the contact on the AS is neither intentional nor flagrant but is still a foul. |
Quote:
Lah me...... |
Quote:
I think 4-19-1 reads pretty clearly to say that until the shooter returns to the court, personal fouls apply - even if the ball is dead. I still can't imagine reasonable scenarios in which the ball would be dead and the shooter still airborne... another day! |
Quote:
2. A1 jumps and shoots; A2 excessively swings elbows without making contact; ball becomes dead immediately; B1 fouls A2. (Less reasonable, but possible.) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12pm. |