![]() |
|
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
and while some have said fai has nothing to do with it I desagree we are asked to make similar calls on similar plays so I am thinking this would be one of those scenarios.
__________________
New and improved: if it's new it's not improved; if it's improved it's not new. |
|
|||
|
But OHBHRUIFLEEF they're not similar plays. One has a set of rules prescribed for it, and the other does not. Can't get much more dissimilar than that.
Also, for the ball-handler to push away the arm of the defender, is indeed a basketball play. You'd NEVER call it intentional if that same motion happened inbounds, unless it was for excessive roughness. FOM is, this sitch shouldn't happen. DOG should be called as soon as defender reaches across. If there's enough time of the defender having body parts oob that the ball-handler feels that he has to reach out and push body parts away, ref isn't doing his/her job. Unless in the OP, the contact happend on the inbound side of the plane. Then the ball-handler is an idiot and deserves to be called for a common foul.
__________________
It's not who you know, it's whom you know. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
You don't enforce both, and you don't have two Ts. Enforce the "final action" only. See the case book. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
But the issue I was trying to get across was that you had to see and consider the whole play and make the call other wise you could end up with a whole lot more on your hands than you barganed for.
__________________
New and improved: if it's new it's not improved; if it's improved it's not new. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Inbounding after a T | Chuck_Lewis | Basketball | 15 | Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:51pm |
| Inbounding ball | lukealex | Basketball | 3 | Wed Oct 11, 2006 01:33am |
| inbounding | xxssmen | Basketball | 3 | Tue Mar 09, 2004 01:35pm |
| Inbounding | gdub33 | Basketball | 2 | Sat Jan 12, 2002 11:12pm |
| Inbounding | DrC. | Basketball | 23 | Tue May 02, 2000 03:56pm |