Whaddya got?

[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