Whaddya got?

[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.

[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