Whaddya got?

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

"Airborne" shooter exception...

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

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

Wasn't someone under him?

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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).

[Nevadaref]

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.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

Why such resistance to following the NFHS directive and enforcing the rules as written?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Seeing this opinion expressed by a presumably good official makes me

Why such resistance to following the NFHS directive and enforcing the rules as written?

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?

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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).

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

But he doesn't hang, he lets go so he can land on the opponent. He he does not land on the guy then there would be nothing unusual about this dunk.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

True, but I don't actually think he really swung on the rim...at least nothing worthy of a T. I think that people are fixated on the fact that he landed on a player's back, that it appears the he's swinging like Tarzan on the rim. Like Rut said, if none of that happened, then I feel like 95% of us wouldn't think anything of his grabbing the rim.

And Nevada, if you're telling me that you would issue a T for hanging on the rim, and an intentional foul...well then good luck with that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

True, but I don't actually think he really swung on the rim...at least nothing worthy of a T. I think that people are fixated on the fact that he landed on a player's back, that it appears the he's swinging like Tarzan on the rim. Like Rut said, if none of that happened, then I feel like 95% of us wouldn't think anything of his grabbing the rim.

You're right; if he swings like that and lands on the floor, I've got nothing since there was a player under him when he dunked. If he swung like that without a player under him, it's a T. The rule says he gets to prevent injury, so by purposefully landing on another player, he makes it clear that he was not grasping the ring to prevent injury.

I don't have my book handy, but I think this might also fit under taunting.

Another thought:
Live ball, A1 and B1 square off and start bumping chests in the middle of play.

Most of us would go with double Ts. The contact is incidental to the action earning the T.

[Camron Rust]

He hung long enough to rotate his body towards the other player. It was not a normal movement of dunking. If that is not a hang, then there is no such thing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He hung long enough to rotate his body towards the other player. It was not a normal movement of dunking. If that is not a hang, then there is no such thing.

Considering I see that very same action on many dunks and certainly dunks where a player has received an alley opp pass, then we are not calling a lot of Ts for this at all.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He hung long enough to rotate his body towards the other player. It was not a normal movement of dunking. If that is not a hang, then there is no such thing.

Really? The grasping on the rim didn't even register to me cause we see that kind of stuff on a regular basis and we're not T'ing it. IMO, the landing on the defender is skewing the preception of his "hanging" on the rim.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're right; if he swings like that and lands on the floor, I've got nothing since there was a player under him when he dunked. If he swung like that without a player under him, it's a T. The rule says he gets to prevent injury, so by purposefully landing on another player, he makes it clear that he was not grasping the ring to prevent injury.

I don't have my book handy, but I think this might also fit under taunting.

Another thought:
Live ball, A1 and B1 square off and start bumping chests in the middle of play.

Most of us would go with double Ts. The contact is incidental to the action earning the T.

That's kind of my point...the actually grasping of the rim wasn't long enough to warrant a T. He doesn't IMO grasp the rim for any length of time and doesn't really "swing on the rim."

I feel like if a T is called here, then you could fit it under taunting like the play you mention. I feel like that's a much more accurate interpretation of this play rather than calling a T for grasping the rim. And I would call a double T in your situation like you suggest, but if we want to stick by the book, we should call a double foul since we can't call a T for live ball contact. Not saying I'd go that route, but it seems like some want to go strictly by the book

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

It was a POE about two seasons ago. It was right there in the rules book for you in black and white. All you have to do is read it.

Just because Struckhoff doesn't understand the NFHS rules very well doesn't mean that the committee can't instruct all officials to enforce them as written.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

And Nevada, if you're telling me that you would issue a T for hanging on the rim, and an intentional foul...well then good luck with that.

Nope, I recommend one or the other. Back in post #28 of this thread, I stated to call the IPF.