Whaddya got?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You will not find any part of that POE or a specific interpretation that suggest the play in question to have a PC foul call. And when you do, then I will worry about what is in black and white. But there always has to be one guy.

Never said that there was a POE or directive to "have a PC foul" what I wrote was that the NFHS has clearly directed the officials of the HS game to enforce the rules as written and not deviate with personal philosophies.
Too bad that you can't grasp that. You are guilty of advising people to fail to follow the rules as written by advocating that a technical foul be charged in this specific situation when the rules clearly forbid such as the play involved physical contact.

2010-11 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

2. 1. RULES ENFORCEMENT. There appears to be continued movement away from consistent enforcement of NFHS playing rules. Personal interpretations of the rules by individual officials have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risk to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as they are written and interpreted by the NFHS, negatively impact the basic tenets and fundamentals of the game. Illegal tactics that are permitted – are promoted. When officials allow players to use illegal tactics without penalty, the behavior is condoned and consequently encouraged. When officials consistently enforce the playing rules as intended, players and coaches are able to make the proper adjustments – promoting skill development and a level playing field.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are guilty of advising people to fail to follow the rules as written by advocating that a technical foul be charged in this specific situation when the rules clearly forbid such as the play involved physical contact.

The rules forbid calling a technical foul when there is physical contact?

News to me.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Brad

The rules forbid calling a technical foul when there is physical contact?

News to me.

Yes, Brad, in this specific situation. Please read the entire sentence and think about it before popping off.

The specific situation is contact by or on an airborne shooter while the ball is dead. NFHS rule 4-19-1 note states that this is a personal foul.

If the player were not an airborne shooter, then a technical foul would be appropriate. However, that is not the case here.

[Brad]

Maybe you should have highlighted that part in red!

The rules don't forbid any such thing in this case though. Because this can easily fall under 10-3-7c (Player Technical) "A player shall not ... Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as ... Baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin."

If timing the dismount of your monster dunk so that you land on your opponent and ride him piggyback is not intended to embarrass, ridicule, or demean, I don't know what is.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

Maybe you should have highlighted that part in red!

The rules don't forbid any such thing in this case though. Because this can easily fall under 10-3-7c (Player Technical) "A player shall not ... Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as ... Baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin."

If timing the dismount of your monster dunk so that you land on your opponent and ride him piggyback is not intended to embarrass, ridicule, or demean, I don't know what is.

Exactly!!!

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Ball through the net. Dead ball until team secures it to begin throw-in. No matter which way you try to spin it, a technical foul call is warranted.

[APG]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Ball through the net. Dead ball until team secures it to begin throw-in. No matter which way you try to spin it, a technical foul call is warranted.

Nevada's contention is that even though the ball is dead, the airborne exception applies here. I'd contend, that this is not what the airborne exception was intended for, and I would take a hit for calling a T instead of an intentional personal foul even when it's not "by the book."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Brad

The rules don't forbid any such thing in this case though. Because this can easily fall under 10-3-7c (Player Technical) "A player shall not ... Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as ... Baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin."

If timing the dismount of your monster dunk so that you land on your opponent and ride him piggyback is not intended to embarrass, ridicule, or demean, I don't know what is.

By definition, however, an unsporting foul is a NON-CONTACT foul (4-19-14). So whether we like it or not, the rest of your citation is irrelevant.

I'm not breaking any new ground in this thread, but the situation under discussion involves CONTACT, during a DEAD BALL (6-7-1), by an AIRBORNE SHOOTER (4-1-1). By rule -- again, whether you like it or not -- this is a personal foul (4-19-1).

If you would "rather take the hit" for calling a T, I can actually understand that. But by rule, this is a personal foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

By definition, however, an unsporting foul is a NON-CONTACT foul (4-19-14). So whether we like it or not, the rest of your citation is irrelevant.

I'm not breaking any new ground in this thread, but the situation under discussion involves CONTACT, during a DEAD BALL (6-7-1), by an AIRBORNE SHOOTER (4-1-1). By rule -- again, whether you like it or not -- this is a personal foul (4-19-1).

If you would "rather take the hit" for calling a T, I can actually understand that. But by rule, this is a personal foul.

Then explain 10.3.7?

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then explain 10.3.7?

Peace

In 10.3.7, A1 has already returned to the ground and so is no longer an airborne shooter.

That's really the crux of the entire thread. Do you think that the intentional contact during a dead ball is ALWAYS a technical foul? Or do you believe that the airborne shooter exception in 4-19-1 also applies to dead ball periods?

I don't see any reason to say that 4-19-1 only applies to live balls. It certainly doesn't say that in the rules. We just normally think of it that way. Just because this play doesn't fit into how we "normally" call contact on or by an airborne shooter, doesn't mean the rule stops applying in those non-normal situations. JMHO.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

By definition, however, an unsporting foul is a NON-CONTACT foul (4-19-14).

Yes, but contact during a dead ball is either incidental or technical / flagrant technical.

There are two issues at here ... and I have to say that I am in the camp that states that a player who has completed a dunk and is still hanging on the rim on his way down does not really meet the spirit of the rule of "airborne player".

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Brad

Yes, but contact during a dead ball is either incidental or technical / flagrant technical.

UNLESS the contact is on or by an airborne shooter, which is the entire debate on this play.

I am in the camp that states that a player who has completed a dunk and is still hanging on the rim on his way down does not really meet the spirit of the rule of "airborne player".

Why in the world not?? What other reason is there for making an exception for an airborne shooter if it doesn't cover this situation? The ONLY way I can think of for an airborne shooter to commit a foul after the ball is dead is to do it after a dunk. Nobody's hang time is good enough to stay airborne until after a 15-foot jump shot goes through the basket.

So should we submit a rule change so that 4-1-1 reads that an airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try and has not yet returned to the floor, but who has not grasped the ring? (That opens up a whole other can of worms for this play, btw.)

As I said previously, I can actually understand why we'd want this to be a dead ball contact technical foul. It is the "expected" call. It's like calling one foul instead of a multiple foul. You could be technically right in calling a multiple foul, but nobody does; and it would be a major headache if you did. But at least in that case, you have rule support for calling one foul (after all, the player who gave the foul to did commit a foul). And to be completely honest, in the heat of the moment, I might actually forget that he's an airborne shooter because of the unusual circumstances.

But in the video play, you actually don't have rule support for a technical foul.