Whaddya got?

[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."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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."

Here is the problem, the "airborne shooter" was not running into a defender which was in a LGP. So to suggest this is what to call you would at least have a defender in a favorable position. That part of the rule did not magically go away with the airborne shooter rule. And the contact was not enough to constitute a foul if you ask me. The only thing that would even be considered was the purposeful action to land on a opponent. I am sorry but the claim that that is somehow a personal interpretation is laughable.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the problem, the "airborne shooter" was not running into a defender which was in a LGP. So to suggest this is what to call you would at least have a defender in a favorable position. That part of the rule did not magically go away with the airborne shooter rule. And the contact was not enough to constitute a foul if you ask me. The only thing that would even be considered was the purposeful action to land on a opponent. I am sorry but the claim that that is somehow a personal interpretation is laughable.

Peace

You got no arguments from me...

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the problem, the "airborne shooter" was not running into a defender which was in a LGP. So to suggest this is what to call you would at least have a defender in a favorable position. That part of the rule did not magically go away with the airborne shooter rule. And the contact was not enough to constitute a foul if you ask me. The only thing that would even be considered was the purposeful action to land on a opponent. I am sorry but the claim that that is somehow a personal interpretation is laughable.

Peace

You are not going to defeat him with logic.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

You are not going to defeat him with logic.

Not that logic, anyway.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

You are not going to defeat him with logic.

You know they say ... Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!!!

JK JK!!