![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
*SIGH*, sorry to drag this out, but.... Rule 4, Section 8, Article 6: "...When the ball goes through the basket before contact occurs, the contact shall be ignored unless B1 has been placed at a disadvantage by being unable to rebound when the shot is missed or unable to put the ball in play without delay..." Seems to me if A1 dunks, then hits B1, it's a no-call unless the contact was so severe that B1 can't get up in a timely fashion. The intent of the rule seems to be to penalize a layup/dunker who creates EXCESSIVE contact after the made basket, with a defender who's under the hoop. Judgement here would be on a case-by-case basis and could go EITHER way, and often does. Article 7 (Women): "B1 is standing directly under the basket before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward momentum of airborne shooter A1 causes A1 to run into B1. RULING: B1 is not in a legal guarding position. Blocking foul on B1." This leans more towards my position of the shooter in this situation NOT being at fault. I am certainly guilty of not communicating well enough in this thread. But to say I am ignoring the rule or making up my own rule based on "personal preference" is inaccurate. I know I'm new around here, and I will always defer to the more experienced stripes, but I deserve better than that. |
|
|||
Quote:
"...When the ball goes through the basket before contact occurs, the contact shall be ignored unless B1 has been placed at a disadvantage by being unable to rebound when the shot is missed or unable to put the ball in play without delay..." Seems to me if A1 dunks, then hits B1, it's a no-call unless the contact was so severe that B1 can't get up in a timely fashion. The intent of the rule seems to be to penalize a layup/dunker who creates EXCESSIVE contact after the made basket, with a defender who's under the hoop. Judgement here would be on a case-by-case basis and could go EITHER way, and often does. Article 7 (Women): "B1 is standing directly under the basket before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward momentum of airborne shooter A1 causes A1 to run into B1. RULING: B1 is not in a legal guarding position. Blocking foul on B1." This leans more towards my position of the shooter in this situation NOT being at fault. I am certainly guilty of not communicating well enough in this thread. But to say I am ignoring the rule or making up my own rule based on "personal preference" is inaccurate. I know I'm new around here, and I will always defer to the more experienced stripes, but I deserve better than that. [/B][/QUOTE]1)The original post in this thread said that the shooter knocked the defensive player down after dunking.You said it is a "no call" in every case,no matter whether the defensive player is now unable to put the ball into play without delay.You never have a foul on the shooter,no matter what.That is contrary to the rule that you quoted above(AR6).Wouldn't you call knocking someone down creating "EXCESSIVE contact" too,Btw? 2)Womens AR7 says it should be a blocking foul.You say it is a "no call" instead. 3)You now say above "Judgement here would be on a case-by case-basis and could go EITHER way,and often does".That's completely different than the stance that you originally took-i.e.it's never a foul on the shooter. Comments? [Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 28th, 2003 at 05:08 AM] |
|
|||
My question is in a play like this what is the contact? Does he bump him and would b1 have a fair chance of getting the rebound if he was in position to do so? Or does a1 knock him off the court? I am looking at the type of contact in this play. If we have a crash and one or both players get knocked over, not a flop, I have PC. If they both bump or if b1 flops, play on.
__________________
~Hodges My two sense! ![]() |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
My intention was to say that in these "under the basket" situations, PC foul is sometimes but NOT ALWAYS the right call (such as the original situation stated which I still maintain was one where shooter should not be penalized). My other point was that we officials constantly massage the rules, apply/do not apply them, according to the natural flow of the game, and this may be an example of that. As Jim Rome says....[B]"I am out".[B] |
|
|||
Quote:
My other point was that we officials constantly massage the rules, apply/do not apply them, according to the natural flow of the game, and this may be an example of that. [/QUOTE]Good points!I can see a little bit better now where you are coming from. In NFHS rules,which you don't use and aren't used to,the play where an airborne shooter knocks a defender(in a legal gaurding position) down when he returns to the floor is usually called an player contol foul.The rules state that that is the way that the play should be called. NCAA rules give an official more latitude,and allows them to use more judgement in deciding whether to call something or not.IMO,if someone is getting run over big-time,you're usually better off calling the appropriate foul rather than no-calling it,though. |
|
|||
Canuckref, I was pretty much right with you until you said. . .
Quote:
![]() Chuck
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only! |
|
||||
Quote:
I could not have said it better myself. Well done. MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio |
|
|||
Quote:
Chuck
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only! |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|