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 Tue Jan 28, 2003, 05:34am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by canuckrefguy
[/B]
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. [/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]
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1