In the act of shooting?

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

According to the philosophies of many on here as expressed in another recent thread, that would not be a shooting foul at all since he didn't continue to shoot after the foul but made another move prior to actually shooting.

I don't agree with them, however.

Tongue in cheek I know but that's a misrepresentation of what those of us on that side of the argument are saying.

Easy answer to the OP is two shots.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Tongue in cheek I know but that's a misrepresentation of what those of us on that side of the argument are saying.

Easy answer to the OP is two shots.

Only somewhat. I'm just exposing the inconsistency in that philosophy. It is merely that some just don't want to make rules-based decisions and would rather take the easy road based on what the fans/coaches expect instead of the right road.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Only somewhat. I'm just exposing the inconsistency in that philosophy. It is merely that too many just don't want to made decisions and would rather take the easy road instead of the right road.

I think that in some of the cases, it's not the easy road they are trying to take, but rather retroactively justify whatever they said first so they can never be wrong --- rules be damned.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think that in some of the cases, it's not the easy road they are trying to take, but rather retroactively justify whatever they said first so they can never be wrong --- rules be damned.

I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. But it sure doesn't seem to resemble anything to do with that previous conversation.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. But it sure doesn't seem to resemble anything to do with that previous conversation.

Sure doesn't to me either...plus I thought we weren't supposed to bring "rules" into these conversations, so how can they be damned?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. But it sure doesn't seem to resemble anything to do with that previous conversation.

Hmm...

Sometimes, someone says something that is flat wrong. They are called on it - but through stubbornness or refusal to be wrong, they continue to insist they are right, regardless of what people say or of what the rules state for that matter. They are not taking the easy road or making a lazy ruling - they are just refusing to listen to logic.

Now ... um, what exactly is this requirement that my response must resemble some previous conversation? You've thrown me there. If my response (IN this thread, and TO something said in this thread) happens to line up with something said in a previous thread... great. If it doesn't ... so what? I believe my comment was more general than you seem to be assuming it to be.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Hmm...

Sometimes, someone says something that is flat wrong. They are called on it - but through stubbornness or refusal to be wrong, they continue to insist they are right, regardless of what people say or of what the rules state for that matter. They are not taking the easy road or making a lazy ruling - they are just refusing to listen to logic.

Now ... um, what exactly is this requirement that my response must resemble some previous conversation? You've thrown me there. If my response (IN this thread, and TO something said in this thread) happens to line up with something said in a previous thread... great. If it doesn't ... so what? I believe my comment was more general than you seem to be assuming it to be.

Feel better?

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Only somewhat. I'm just exposing the inconsistency in that philosophy. It is merely that some just don't want to made decisions and would rather take the easy road instead of the right road.

It doesnt expose any inconsistency at all nor is it about taking the easy road or doing something that is not right by any stretch of the imagination.

But no need to hi-jack this thread to an issue that's already been discussed.