The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 09, 2011, 03:43pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
If one wants to go 100 percent by the book, then this would be either an intentional or flagrant personal foul or a player control/blocking foul since this is technically an "airborne" shooter and thus the exception would apply. You'd be 100 percent "right" by rule, but still wrong IMO. You ask 100 officials what they'd call on this, and you'd get at least 95 of them saying if a call is to be made, it'd be a T. I bet if you ask that many assignors, they'd tell you that they'd want a T on this call rather than a personal foul.

Those that are going by the book on this particular play are calling it too purely IMO. If you're going to go by the book this strictly then, I'm assuming you'll be calling multiple/simultaneous fouls (instead of picking one or the other), calling 3 second violations when an offensive player has the back of his heel in the lane, and calling a leaving the court when a portion of a player's foot is out of bounds.

Now I'm pretty sure that almost none of y'all would do that because that would be calling by the book too purely and not the intent of these rules and it's my belief that applying the airborne exception is a case this also. Of course this is all IMO.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 09, 2011, 05:27pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer View Post
If one wants to go 100 percent by the book, then this would be either an intentional or flagrant personal foul or a player control/blocking foul since this is technically an "airborne" shooter and thus the exception would apply.
That's all I'm saying. That's all I've ever been saying.

Quote:
You ask 100 officials what they'd call on this, and you'd get at least 95 of them saying if a call is to be made, it'd be a T. I bet if you ask that many assignors, they'd tell you that they'd want a T on this call rather than a personal foul.
I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with you.

Quote:
that would be calling by the book too purely and not the intent of these rules and it's my belief that applying the airborne exception is a case this also. Of course this is all IMO.
And here is my only quibble. Why would this NOT be the intent of the rule? As I asked earlier, when else would an airborne shooter commit a foul AFTER the ball became dead? It can only happen after a dunk, because nobody has the hang time to stay airborne until after a 15-foot jumper goes through the basket. So it seems to me that this is precisely the intent of the rule -- to penalize a dunker who initiates contact with a defender, even after the ball has gone through the basket. The fact that the contact is delayed because he hung momentarily on the ring doesn't seem to change the essential elements of the play, IMHO.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whaddya got? fullor30 Basketball 8 Thu Feb 26, 2009 07:04pm
Whaddya got? WhistlesAndStripes Basketball 35 Tue Jan 15, 2008 01:40am
Whaddya do? WhistlesAndStripes Basketball 8 Mon Jan 23, 2006 04:17am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1