Free Throw Shooter

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Just an observation: When Mary Struckhoff emailed me the SITUATION which will be in the 2008-09 Casebook, something struck me as odd. The play had been placed in Rule 8, Section 2 of the Casebook and not Rule 3, Section 3.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Just an observation: When Mary Struckhoff emailed me the SITUATION which will be in the 2008-09 Casebook, something struck me as odd. The play had been placed in Rule 8, Section 2 of the Casebook and not Rule 3, Section 3.

MTD, Sr.

A little late to the party, huh?

Camron point out that fact back in post #76.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Note that this new case's numbering implies connected to rule 8.2 (Designating a Free Thrower) and not 3.3 as Nev was basing his opinion on nor on 3.2 as I was. However, it does clearly say that a player is an available substitute even if they were just removed if they are the only one left and (implied) another player must leave the game.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A little late to the party, huh?

Camron point out that fact back in post #76.

NevadeRef:

Yeah, I am not late to the party I still am partying ever since I received Mary's email. I haven't partied like this since I was in college.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NevadeRef:

Yeah, I am not late to the party I still am partying ever since I received Mary's email. I haven't partied like this since I was in college.

MTD, Sr.

So, IOW, you're partying like it's 1899?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, IOW, you're partying like it's 1899?

Snaqs:

Come join the party.

MTD, Sr.