|
|||
Quote:
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
And for Bob and JR, just leave it alone and let's see where this goes!
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
NV, you're always here when we don't want your input...where are you now?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
New situation. Team B has already received a delay of game warning. B1 fouls thrower A1. We all know that it is an intentional foul to foul a thrower. We also know that if a warning had not been given, you give a warning and assess a foul. In this situation, we now have B1 committing a second delay of game which is nornmally a team technical and we have an intentional foul. Do you penalize the breaking of the plane and the fouling of the thrower as two separate acts or just treat them as one? BTW, I'm not setting you up. Some believe that these are two distinct issues and others believe they are penzlized as one act. What do you think?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
On what rule reference do you base your assumption and postulate?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
"...competing solutions are equal...?"
Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both? I can't.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
Quote:
I realize that we call the intentional foul AND issue the warning if a defender contacts the inbounder before a delay warning has been given. But I don't think that's to penalize 2 acts; I think that's so that we have justification to call the T next time he breaks the plane without contacting anything. He doesn't get a free pass to jump across the plane next time, just because he whacked the inbounder this time. |
|
|||
Quote:
Still going around in circles, aren't we? |
|
|||
Quote:
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFHS issued a ruling with similar logic to the one above regarding dunking a dead ball and then grasping the ring in which they state that only the intentional foul shall be called. In any event my personal opinion doesn't mean squat when put up against an official NFHS ruling. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Grasping the rim during play | zebraman | Basketball | 12 | Thu Jun 24, 2004 08:30pm |
grasping the rim | Dibbs | Basketball | 6 | Tue Dec 24, 2002 10:02pm |
Grasping The Ring | APHP | Basketball | 25 | Tue Sep 10, 2002 02:22pm |
Grasping the Ring | Mike Burns | Basketball | 3 | Wed Jan 23, 2002 10:32pm |
Grasping the "Basket" | rainmaker | Basketball | 10 | Tue Jan 08, 2002 03:48am |