The above cited rule, this logical argument

and these two case plays convince me.

4.19.8 SITUATION D: A1 has possession of the ball and is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free-throw situation when A4 and B4 are whistled for a double foul. RULING: A4 and B4 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. A1 receives the ball to attempt the one-and-one free throw with the lane spaces properly occupied. (4-36-2b; 7-5-9)

6.7 SITUATION C: Under what circumstances does the ball remain live when a foul occurs just prior to the ball being in flight during a try or tap? RULING: The ball would ordinarily become dead at once, but it remains live if the foul is by the defense, and this foul occurs after A1 has started the try or tap for goal and time does not expire before the ball is in flight. The foul by the defense may be either personal or technical and the exception to the rule applies to field goal tries and taps and free-throw tries. (4-11; 4-41-1)

Your approach is getting really old. How about posting a reason the statement is not valid rather implying you don't believe a post and ask them to prove it. If you have reason to believe it untrue, give something more intelligent than "Sigh... Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?". Offer something useful....something that couters the claim.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../smilielol.gif

And your reading comprehension seems to be lacking also. If you go back and read what I posted, I agreed with Bob Jenkins that there <b>DOESN'T</b> seem to be a <b>DEFINITIVE</b> rules citation because R4-11-2 and R4-11-3 seem to say completely different things, and R6-7-7 and EXCEPTION(c) can be interpreted differently also. I then agreed with the way that Bob interpreted the language.

Imo, there is NO <b>definitive</b> rules citation to cite, and I have stated such. The language of the rules conflict and is hazy in a situation when both teams commit a foul, and thus can be interpreted differently. Iow, this is <b>another</b> situation where people interpreting the existing language differently could end up either being right or wrong. I recognize that. You won't. Quite simply, what I won't state is that I am categorically 100% right in <b>my</b> opinion, like you people are doing.

The lack of a <b>definitive</b> ruling doesn't seem to stop the infallible ones on this forum from stating that their freaking <b>opinion</b> of which rule is applicable is the <b>ONLY</b> true <b>opinion</b> possible. That's consistent with your collective past postings also, and it sureashell has got old with me too.

I still agree with Bob Jenkins' take and I still refuse to debate the reasons why any further with you and the others like you. It's pointless.

Yes, I am old. I am not so addled though that I'll accept <b>"opinions"</b> as being gospel though. Note- that applies to your's and Camron's <b>opinion</b>.

4-11-2 and 6-7-7 (c) both refer to a foul by an opponent of the player who has started a try. 4-11-3 refers to a foul by a teammate of the player who has started a try. These plays refer to different situations, so why would they not say "completely different things."


4.19.8 C, the other play cited, refers to a try which has been released, so I don't see that it could be applicable here, either.


Having reviewed all this, 4-11-2 " .....if a teammate fouls......before the ball is in flight.....ball becomes dead immediately...." does indeed seem definitive to me.

Yes, we have discussed this before. The search (I used double foul continuous motion) turned up several such threads. And, almost all of the opinions (including Jurassic's) were that continuous motion did not apply. The opinions were based on the same (and inadequate, imo) references as in this thread.

No definitive case was cited, and no explanation of the apparent conflict between 4-11-2 and 4-11-3 was given, that I could find.

How is it a conflict?

One says (paraphrasing, of course): Continuous motion applies if the defense fouls.

The other says: Continuous motion does not apply if the offense fouls.

Neither contains the word "only" (as in "only the defense / offense fouls"). Regardless of whether you allow the try to continue, you are "ignoring" one of the rules.

What if we look at it this way: Continuous motion applies if the defense fouls.
Simple enough. But what if on this play A1 takes 7 steps after he is fouled by B1 and before he releases the ball? If the travel causes the ball to become dead, we are not ignoring the rule which allowed it to remain alive, are we?

Gee, I guess that you've changed Jurassic's mind. :) I also agree that the rules references simply aren't definitive.

Then that's not continuous motion. And, it's not the same play (it's more akin to a "false double foul" then to a "double foul.")

Okay, so your point is that this is one thing followed by the other, as opposed to two things happening at once. Granted. My point is that when one rule says ball is dead and one rule says ball remains alive, the ball is dead rule trumps the ball remains alive rule unless a specific exception is noted, which, in this case, as far as I know, there is not.

Even without an explict, direct case, basic logic comes in here...

A1 has started a try. B2 fouls A2....continuous motion on. A1 fouls B1 before releasing the shot. Is The same logic that says continuous motion applies when a teammate fouls also suggest that continuous motion applies so that A1 can complete the shot in this case. However, we know that any infraction by A1 kills the ball...even though the continuous motion rule says A1 gets to complete the shot....but that is assuming there is not another complicating infraction. Its not mentioned, but such things are always implied in several rules.

All possible cases are not cited in the case book (the book would be 1000 pages if so) but it is very clear that offensive infractions always kill the ball if the try has not been released (and sometimes after).



Repeating the cite by Nev..

4.19.8 SITUATION D: A1 has possession of the ball and is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free-throw situation when A4 and B4 are whistled for a double foul. RULING: A4 and B4 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. A1 receives the ball to attempt the one-and-one free throw with the lane spaces properly occupied. (4-36-2b; 7-5-9)

If that's not definitive, we might as well burn to books since they're useless.

Bob,
Perhaps this will satisfy the definitive phrasing that you seek.

1. circumstances is plural and the question therefore is set up to provide ALL of the circumstances in which the ball is to remain live, not just some of them. If something, such as a double foul, isn't listed in here, then the ball doesn't remain live.

2. The foul by the defense is singular as are all other references to a foul in this ruling. That is evidence that the intent of the rules makers is for continuous motion to only apply when there is a foul by the defensive team. Nothing else is included in this ruling.

Lastly if we understand the spirit and intent of the rule. It is to prevent the defense from fouling someone away from the ball everytime that the offensive team's best shooter gets the ball and is about to try for goal. That was deemed an unfair tactic, so the continuous motion rule was adopted to counteract this.