Another episode of "T or No T"...you make the call

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Unless he has springs in his fingers.

But the obvious illegal action still boils down to the judgment of the floor officials. To pull the trigger or not to pull the trigger??

Those that are saying no T are doing so by applying a qualifier to the rule that doesn't exist.....that he didn't grasp the rim too much. But, the rule doesn't consider how much....just whether he did or did not.

That said, and even in spite of my prior comments, I may or may not call it depending on the overall situation...yeah, I did say that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Those that are saying no T are doing so by applying a qualifier to the rule that doesn't exist.....that he didn't grasp the rim too much. But, the rule doesn't consider how much....just whether he did or did not.

That said, and even in spite of my prior comments, I may or may not call it depending on the overall situation...yeah, I did say that.

No one is qualifying anything any more than those that think this is a "no-brainer" T either. Because I have not seen any interpretation that says clearly what is or what is not a hanging on the rim dunk under the NF rules. And certainly not anything that shows what is or is not on video. So what I think it comes down to how much someone actually sees dunking in their game. I could find much more suspect dunks than this one and this was not even close to those that are not even called a T. Again, there is a reason why some guys get questioned for their ability to call certain things and this being a "no-brainer" T would suggest something about those saying that. There is clearly a debate to be had, but let us not act like one side is so much right and the other side is so wrong.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Those that are saying no T are doing so by applying a qualifier to the rule that doesn't exist.....that he didn't grasp the rim too much. But, the rule doesn't consider how much....just whether he did or did not.

That said, and even in spite of my prior comments, I may or may not call it depending on the overall situation...yeah, I did say that.

Don't you have to add that qualifier though to properly judge plays? If we went just by the strict wording of the rule, any grasp of the rim would be a T no matter how short(not including injury prevention). Do you think the Brittney Griner dunk should have been a T?

Whether the rule says explicitly or not, we add that qualifier as to how we judge the play IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Don't you have to add that qualifier though to properly judge plays? If we went just by the strict wording of the rule, any grasp of the rim would be a T no matter how short(not including injury prevention). Do you think the Brittney Griner dunk should have been a T?

Whether the rule says explicitly or not, we add that qualifier as to how we judge the play IMO.

By rule, no. Did they grab the rim or not? It is a simple question. That is all the rule requires us to judge....not was it too long. Unless it is for safety, the rules say it is a T if a player grasps the rim.

Just because minor occurrences of grasping the rim are often not called doesn't mean it is actually legal any more than uncalled travels are.

In my opinion, if the grabbing of the rim is used to raise the body, it is a T....and I've seen more than enough to tell when a the effects on the player's body are from just making the dunk vs. unnecessarily raising the body.

And in this specific case, the player used the rim to lift himself high enough to get his head above the rim....I've never seen a dunk where a player's head gets that high after the dunk without grabbing the rim....they may be near that high before the dunk but they don't start to come down and go back up without some extra help.

Now, in a game, I might not always call it. It depends on the game....certainly not in the Griner case, even if I felt she violated the letter of the rule. It would have simply been wrong to call something on that.

[amusedofficial]

I don't think the mere act of pulling one's self up after a dunk is a T, they have to land after taking their momentum to the hoop and I don't think fear of the other team getting two and the ball ought to be a factor in doing a pull-up motion to stop the momentum and allow a straight drop to the floor. Didn't any of you people ever climb trees as a kid? Two hundred something bounds on an ankle or knee the wrong way ends seasons and careers.

I also don't think it matters that there are no bodies below the shooter; one can land just as badly on an open court as on another person.

However, a one-and-a-half gainer after the shot is pure gymnastics, intended to call attention to himself and for no other reason and deserved a T.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

I also don't think it matters that there are no bodies below the shooter; one can land just as badly on an open court as on another person.

Correct, it doesn't. The rule allows a player to grasp the ring to avoid injury. But as others have said, I don't think the kid was grasping the ring to avoid injury. This looked like more of a "flourish" at the end of the move. As MTDS and others have pointed out, the kid's head went higher after he put the ball through and the only way that happens is by pulling himself up.

If I'd called a T in that spot my reaction to the complaints of the coach would've been "Coach, did he need to do what he did to protect himself or actually make the shot?"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

I also don't think it matters that there are no bodies below the shooter.

I believe that this used to matter, maybe twenty-five, or thirty, years ago, but it doesn't matter anymore.