Whaddya got?

[MD Longhorn]

I find it odd that anyone wants to T this for grabbing the rim, when there was clearly someone somewhat underneath him at that moment - doesn't such an instance give the shooter MORE leeway regarding hanging onto the rim longer to avoid landing on someone? In fact, someone early in the thread suggests reminding him that he should have held on LONGER.

I'm not sure I have a foul of any sort here.

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I find it odd that anyone wants to T this for grabbing the rim, when there was clearly someone somewhat underneath him at that moment - doesn't such an instance give the shooter MORE leeway regarding hanging onto the rim longer to avoid landing on someone? In fact, someone early in the thread suggests reminding him that he should have held on LONGER.

I'm not sure I have a foul of any sort here.

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

I agree, but grabbing & hanging to prevent injury and swinging & mounting to humiliate the defender are two different things.

Depending on what has happened prior to this play, would make this decision easier.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

Yep.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

...
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.

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

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I find it odd that anyone wants to T this for grabbing the rim, when there was clearly someone somewhat underneath him at that moment - doesn't such an instance give the shooter MORE leeway regarding hanging onto the rim longer to avoid landing on someone? In fact, someone early in the thread suggests reminding him that he should have held on LONGER.

I'm not sure I have a foul of any sort here.

Hanging on the rim for safety is not the same as doing a chin-up, lifting up, or swinging around to land on someone. He gets to grab the rim for safety....anything more reopens the door for a possible T. And that was certainly more, even if he missed the player.