The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 16, 2009, 12:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
NFHS rules call: double foul, resume at the POI.
Sorry for not being clear. This was a block/charge play, couldn't have been double foul.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 16, 2009, 12:42pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by representing View Post
Sorry for not being clear. This was a block/charge play, couldn't have been double foul.
I think you need to read 4.19.8 Situation C.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 16, 2009, 01:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1 View Post
I think you need to read 4.19.8 Situation C.
Not really my situation explained though, since the shooter never got airborne. This was not a shooting situation, but an on-the-floor situation.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 16, 2009, 01:13pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by representing View Post
Not really my situation explained though, since the shooter never got airborne. This was not a shooting situation, but an on-the-floor situation.
That's not the point of the case play. Opposing prelims on a block charge play equal a double foul. Nevada's tagline is tongue in cheek.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 17, 2009, 08:05am
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Wink On-the-floor

Quote:
Originally Posted by representing View Post
Not really my situation explained though, since the shooter never got airborne. This was not a shooting situation, but an on-the-floor situation.
A matter of semantics, but just because the foul happened "on the floor" does not mean it isn't a shooting foul. A player can be held so that they may not leave the floor but still start the shooting motion. In that case, we'd still award the player with 2/3 shoots.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 16, 2009, 02:11pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by representing View Post
This was a block/charge play, couldn't have been double foul.
I couldn't agree more. See how logical this sounds?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 16, 2009, 09:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by representing View Post
Not really my situation explained though, since the shooter never got airborne. This was not a shooting situation, but an on-the-floor situation.
What does contact with the floor or being airborne have to do with the act of shooting?

That case play definitely covers your situation. If there is no try for goal on the play, then you apply the POI rule and resume accordingly as detailed in the following interp.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 8: A1 has control of the ball in Team A's frontcourt. Post players A5 and B5 are pushing each other in an attempt to gain a more advantageous position on the block while (a) A1 is dribbling the ball; (b) the ball is in the air on a pass from A1 to A2; or (c) the ball is in the air on an unsuccessful try for goal by A1. An official calls a double personal foul on A5 and B5. RULING: In (a) and (b), Team A had control of the ball when the double foul occurred, and thus play will be resumed at the point of interruption. Team A will have a designated spot throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. In (c), no team has control while a try for goal is in flight, and since the try was unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be resumed with an alternating possession throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. Had the try been successful, the point of interruption would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. (4-36; 6-4-3g; 7-5-9)


Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
I couldn't agree more. See how logical this sounds?
Sounds inexperienced with a great deal to learn to me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obstruction --- Debate #1,264,894 wadeintothem Softball 19 Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:36am
Help settle a debate pjlyons Basketball 13 Tue Dec 23, 2003 07:45am
Debate foxwhistler Basketball 18 Wed Nov 05, 2003 03:09am
2 man vs. 3 man debate WindyCityRef Basketball 3 Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:11am
The Great Debate: The Flop Brad Basketball 21 Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:59am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1