Whaddya got?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

You act as if it were a fact that he was an airborne shooter. Once he converted the ring to a chin-up bar, that time was passed.

Why? Does he no longer fit the definition in 4-1-1?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why? Does he no longer fit the definition in 4-1-1?

When are we going to start talking real world officiating and stop talking about his made up rulebook/discussion board officiating?

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

when are we going to start talking real world officiating and stop talking about his made up rulebook/discussion board officiating?

Peace

+1

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why? Does he no longer fit the definition in 4-1-1?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When are we going to start talking real world officiating and stop talking about his made up rulebook/discussion board officiating?

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

+1

In my defense, I have already said twice now that I can understand why people want this to be a technical foul, or would call it as a technical foul (even if they know that technically, it's a personal foul), and that there's not an observer in the world who would ding you for calling it a technical foul. I get it, I really do. It really really feels like a technical foul. A technical foul is the expected call.

My only contribution to this thread is to point out that, BY RULE, (and contrary to many of the early posts in the thread) this is a personal foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In my defense, I have already said twice now that I can understand why people want this to be a technical foul, or would call it as a technical foul (even if they know that technically, it's a personal foul), and that there's not an observer in the world who would ding you for calling it a technical foul. I get it, I really do. It really really feels like a technical foul. A technical foul is the expected call.

My only contribution to this thread is to point out that, BY RULE, (and contrary to many of the early posts in the thread) this is a personal foul.

Not sure how it is a personal foul when no part of the contact would be considered a foul in any part of the game. No displacement, neither player prevented from normal movement, just one player landing on their shoulders after a dunk to embarrass them (what other reason does Rondo land on him for). Even if it was accidental, you separate them and move on, but this was done on purpose IMHO. It is not technically a personal foul unless there is some displacement. And until I see a ruling on these specifics then there is no way you can say this is "technically" a PC foul. Again, I do not see how this play was intended to be a personal foul of any kind when all the interpretations with such a play do not include this action.

Peace