No. Maybe.

Well, yes.

Shutup.

Okay, so, by rule: T for hanging and an intentional personal for the landing.

For the newer officials: Where would the throw-in be?

You're also forgetting the T that's going to be handed to the head coach after you make that call

Since we have a dead ball, isn't it an intentional technical? 1 and a 2...

"Airborne" shooter exception...

Then he's gone right after Mrs Rondo is ejected and he gets an indirect for that AND the direct T for reacting to the ejection T.

Sure, if you listen to the table crew.

Right, right... hence some officials argument for pc.
I'll go with the T for hanging.

Me too, just thought it made an interesting exercise in rule study.

Where would the T-I spot be?

Wasn't someone under him?

Peace

I will say..I wouldn't give a T for the hang...I actually don't think he hung on the rim that much and I do think the defender is close enough to justify hanging on for safety. If I were to give a T, it would be for the possbile unsporting act itself (even if it wasn't supported technically by rule).

Seeing this opinion expressed by a presumably good official makes me http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/puke.gif

Why such resistance to following the NFHS directive and enforcing the rules as written? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/read.gif

Do you have a case play or interpretation that suggests this is a NF directive issue?

Better yet, wasn't it you that claimed that Struckoff had no concept of the rules? :eek:

Peace

He gets to hang to prevent himself from landing on another player. He doesn't get to swing to cause himself to land on another player. The rule says, specifically, "to prevent injury," which he clearly does not do. T for the hang, IMO.