Violations/Fouls that you ignore

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

Do "kicked ball" calls always require determining if it was intentional or not ?

Yes. In order to be a violation, it must be intentional.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by stosh

I ignore an opponent of the free throw shooter stepping into the lane early if the basket is made

I also ignore calling a "kicked ball" if it imediately goes out of bounds

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I can think of two situations where you shouldn't do this.

Originally Posted by Welpe

I can think of one, during an AP throw-in. What would be the other?

Originally Posted by stosh

1.) If there is a shot clock
2.) If the ball goes out of bounds at a spot that gives the "kicker's" team an advantage.

I don't really care about shot clocks, but I suppose that's a third situation. Welpe has one, during an AP throwin.

The other is when the throwing team has an endline throwin. If the first touch in bounds is a defensive kick, and the ensuing spot would be on the same endline, the throwing team gets an end line throwin rather than a spot throwin.

If you simply rule out of bounds on the defense, then you've simply got a spot throwin.

[Mark Padgett]

I ignore flagrant fouls that result in reconstructive surgery. They're just too much fun to observe when they happen. I don't want to discourage them.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by MelbRef

Given the response thus far, I doubt if there will be any further inputs to this thread.

Oh well.

So give your list of things you don't call.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

My smart alecky side always makes me ask "what other rules should I ignore ,and why ?"

The reason I was given was the intent and purpose of the rule. I guess that back when they had jump balls after every basket, some players would try to punch the ball to prevent their opponents from rebounding the ball. With players nearby, a punch was considered dangerous. Agree, but I wish I was told that twenty-nine years ago when I first learned the rules. We'll have to get Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. in here to confirm this nineteenth century interpretation