Whaddya got?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nevada's point is that by rule you can't call an unsporting T for contact involving an airborne shooter; even if the ball is dead.

I think this is a situation for which the rules are unprepared, as I'm pretty sure the gurus on the committee would prefer to see a T called for this action (even if you don't call it for hanging due to the player underneath).

Maybe it could be remedied by revising the denfitions so that a player is no longer an airborne shooter once he does a chin-up on the rim.

I think it's pretty obvious that this wasn't what the airborne exception was meant for, and if I'm going to make a call here it's going to be a technical foul for an unsporting act.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think it's pretty obvious that this wasn't what the airborne exception was meant for, and if I'm going to make a call here it's going to be a technical foul for an unsporting act.

And, plain and simple, that is what happened.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think it's pretty obvious that this wasn't what the airborne exception was meant for, and if I'm going to make a call here it's going to be a technical foul for an unsporting act.

Exactly!!!!

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nevada's point is that by rule you can't call an unsporting T for contact involving an airborne shooter; even if the ball is dead.

I think this is a situation for which the rules are unprepared, as I'm pretty sure the gurus on the committee would prefer to see a T called for this action (even if you don't call it for hanging due to the player underneath).

Maybe it could be remedied by revising the denfitions so that a player is no longer an airborne shooter once he does a chin-up on the rim.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

+1...once he hangs on the rim, for safety purposes or illegally, he is no longer an airborne shooter.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think it's pretty obvious that this wasn't what the airborne exception was meant for, and if I'm going to make a call here it's going to be a technical foul for an unsporting act.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

And, plain and simple, that is what happened.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Exactly!!!!

Unfortunately, several people seem to be advocating applying their own personal philosophies to this play instead of enforcing the rules as written as the NFHS has instructed us to do several times over the past few years in POEs.

Just because one doesn't like the outcome that the rules generate, that doesn't permit an individual to apply them differently (some might even contend incorrectly).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Unfortunately, several people seem to be advocating applying their own personal philosophies to this play instead of enforcing the rules as written as the NFHS has instructed us to do several times over the past few years in POEs.

Just because one doesn't like the outcome that the rules generate, that doesn't permit an individual to apply them differently (some might even contend incorrectly).

Unfortunately your reading comprehesion is lacking. Snaq's was suggesting a change in the defintion of an airborne shooter and I was agreeing with his suggestion. So subtract at least 2 from your several.

R.I.F. -- applies here just as much here as it does with the rule book.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Unfortunately, several people seem to be advocating applying their own personal philosophies to this play instead of enforcing the rules as written as the NFHS has instructed us to do several times over the past few years in POEs.

Just because one doesn't like the outcome that the rules generate, that doesn't permit an individual to apply them differently (some might even contend incorrectly).

Will you give us all a break. No one is even suggesting a personal interpretation at all. Actually there are several that are not trying to create a call out of fault logic. If your interpretation is so solid, then show some evidence that this situation should be called that way based on the circumstances of this play.

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Will you give us all a break. No one is even suggesting a personal interpretation at all. Actually there are several that are not trying to create a call out of fault logic. If your interpretation is so solid, then show some evidence that this situation should be called that way based on the circumstances of this play.

Peace

But, if Rondo's mom came onto the floor to see if he was okay, she should be ejected.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

But, if Rondo's mom came onto the floor to see if he was okay, she should be ejected.

Too Funny.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Unfortunately your reading comprehesion is lacking. Snaq's was suggesting a change in the defintion of an airborne shooter and I was agreeing with his suggestion. So subtract at least 2 from your several.

R.I.F. -- applies here just as much here as it does with the rule book.

If Nevada is implying I would make up my own rules, then I take exception. I'm just not sure he was implying that.

My ruling on the play: T for hanging on the rim. He gets to hang up there to stop from falling, but he doesn't get to throw himself onto another player. It says he may grasp it to prevent injury, it doesn't say he gets to play Tarzan while doing so.

I'll ignore the PC foul, just as I'd ignore all but one of multiple fouls committed on a shooter.

I think the rule is clear, if you're calling a foul for the contact, it should be a personal (probably intentional in this case). I also think the rule should be slightly amended, or a case play offered to give us clear direction on an abnormal play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

But, if Rondo's mom came onto the floor to see if he was okay, she should be ejected.

[Welpe]

T for hanging on the rim and intentional personal foul for jumping on the defender. Probably at least one T on his bench too.

And thus would be the end of my non-existent varsity career.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If Nevada is implying I would make up my own rules, then I take exception. I'm just not sure he was implying that.

Anytime you do something he does not agree with you are making up your own rules. He makes this claim every time there is a rules discussion and you do not agree with him. Even if what he suggests would be very hard to sell or justify to those observing.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

But, if Rondo's mom came onto the floor to see if he was okay, she should be ejected.

Don't forget handing the team with a technical foul....

If we're talking about personal philosophy, then that is the king of them..if you're willing to make that kind of pioneer call, then I think I'll live with calling a T here for an unsporting act.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Unfortunately your reading comprehesion is lacking. Snaq's was suggesting a change in the defintion of an airborne shooter and I was agreeing with his suggestion. So subtract at least 2 from your several.

R.I.F. -- applies here just as much here as it does with the rule book.

I understood that Snaq's was suggesting a rule change. I did not understand that you were as well. Your post didn't include the words "could" or "should" which was misleading to me.
So I'll subtract 1 from the count.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You were just camping out waiting to use that, weren't you?