![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Nope, it's a question of whether the throw-in was legal or not. Case book play 6.4.1D states it was a legal throw-in and can't be changed, even though the throw-in was made in error. And the ONLY technical foul called in post #6 was the one called on the H coach AFTER the made 3-point shot.
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
You might want to go back and read post #6......
__________________
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons - for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup! |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Now you just are pretending that Cameron's play doesn't even exist, probably because you realized how wrong the things you were saying were. Quote:
No one cares what post #6 says. No one is talking about that. Please stop pointing out what post #6 says because it doesn't matter. And I notice that you totally ignored my request to post a citation about the time limit for foul to be called. |
|
|||
Gee, maybe because that's when the ONLY foul that was called in in post #6 was actually called?
|
|
|||
No one cares what post #6 says. No one is talking about that. Please stop pointing out what post #6 says because it doesn't matter.
|
|
|||
And I notice that you completely ignore my post asking if I have summarized your way of handling the situation correctly...how about you answer that?
|
|
|||
If the technical was called for what the coach said at that point, the shot should count. My understanding what that the technical was for the preceding act of apparent deception for his team to get the throw-in. I actually have a problem with this theory.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
What the hell??? Post #6 is exactly what we are talking about...the statements were made that the 3 point shot would not count because the Unsporting T - for deliberately making the throw-in that was not theirs - would somehow magically make the live ball dead before the shooter touched the throw-in. Even after the ball was shot and the basket made, we could cancel it because the T actually took place before the shot, even though it wasn't called. Those are the statements being made and they are based on the situation in post #6.
|
|
|||
Quote:
"A foul, other than player- or team-control occurs." 6-7-7
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
JAR, see post #6. There was NO technical foul called before the made shot for an apparent deception to get an unwarranted throw-in. If someone wants to call a "T" for that AFTER the made shot, fine. You do have rules backing to do so. What there is absolutely NO rules backing for though is for anyone to retoactively call an unsporting "T" and then go back and void either the throw-in or the made 3-pointer. You can't retroactively make a ball that was legally live dead, as Camron is trying to claim(I think).
|
|
|||
Um yeah. And can you find anywhere in the situation described in post #6 where a foul of ANY kind occurred BEFORE the made 3-pointer?
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Possesion arrow indicators for whistles | Love2ref4Ever | Basketball | 67 | Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:41am |
possesion arrow | refbater | Basketball | 6 | Thu Dec 11, 2008 02:54pm |
possesion arrow | bball4ever | Basketball | 8 | Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:00pm |
Technicals at Halftime - What happens to the possesion arrow? | bradfordwilkins | Basketball | 6 | Sat Mar 05, 2005 01:29pm |
Alternate Possesion Arrow | ngilref | Basketball | 2 | Mon Nov 26, 2001 10:46pm |