The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   NCAA Men's question (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/98979-ncaa-mens-question.html)

just another ref Tue Jan 06, 2015 01:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by La Rikardo (Post 948869)
They could amend 5-1-2 pretty easily to cancel the goal in the event of any personal foul by an airborne shooter. Is there a reason the rule-makers don't want an intentional personal foul to cancel the goal?

I'm guessing because they never saw an intentional or flagrant foul on an airborne shooter and they never thought about it.

frezer11 Tue Jan 06, 2015 01:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by La Rikardo (Post 948869)
They could amend 5-1-2 pretty easily to cancel the goal in the event of any personal foul by an airborne shooter. Is there a reason the rule-makers don't want an intentional personal foul to cancel the goal?

Man, I couldn't agree more with every word of this post. Don't get me wrong, I'll still apply the rules as they are written, but this would be a great change.

La Rikardo Tue Jan 06, 2015 01:12am

If it's a borderline call between PC and intentional in this particular end-of-game situation, I'd be inclined to err on the side of PC because of this rule. If, however, the airborne shooter kicks an opponent in the face after releasing the ball on the try, I wouldn't have much of a choice but to count the basket. Slightly absurd.

Either that or they could just go with the NCAA rule of counting the basket regardless of any foul that may occur after the ball is in flight on a try.

AremRed Tue Jan 06, 2015 02:14am

Can someone explain to me why a flagrant or intentional foul committed by an airborne shooter cannot also be classified a player-control foul? I read the definitions of each and don't see anything that makes them mutually exclusive.

just another ref Tue Jan 06, 2015 02:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 948895)
Can someone explain to me why a flagrant or intentional foul committed by an airborne shooter cannot also be classified a player-control foul? I read the definitions of each and don't see anything that makes them mutually exclusive.

The definitions says: A player control foul is a common foul......

AremRed Tue Jan 06, 2015 02:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 948896)
The definitions says: A player control foul is a common foul......

Aha! I agree, stupid wording. Forgive me though if I use some common sense and disallow the basket when an airborne shooter karate-kicks a legal defender in the face after releasing the ball.

La Rikardo Tue Jan 06, 2015 03:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 948897)
Aha! I agree, stupid wording. Forgive me though if I use some common sense and disallow the basket when an airborne shooter karate-kicks a legal defender in the face after releasing the ball.

Wrong by the book, but I don't think you'll find anyone questioning you on the court.

AremRed Tue Jan 06, 2015 03:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by La Rikardo (Post 948898)
Wrong by the book, but I don't think you'll find anyone questioning you on the court.

Let's hope not. :eek:

Nevadaref Tue Jan 06, 2015 03:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by La Rikardo (Post 948869)
They could amend 5-1-2 pretty easily to cancel the goal in the event of any personal foul by an airborne shooter. Is there a reason the rule-makers don't want an intentional personal foul to cancel the goal?

Sadly, the NFHS doesn't often do what makes sense and sometimes even goes the opposite direction into absurdness.

For example, a several years ago Team A lost the right to run the endline when Team B committed any foul during the throw-in. The NFHS changed that to allow this privilege to be retained. However, just a few years ago the NFHS revoked the privilege of running the endline from Team A when Team B commits an intentional or flagrant personal foul immediately prior to or during the throw-in. This was done by adding the word "common" to rule 7-5-7b.

Several of us on here questioned the logic in taking something away from Team A because Team B offends in a more serious manner.

Camron Rust Tue Jan 06, 2015 04:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 948897)
Aha! I agree, stupid wording. Forgive me though if I use some common sense and disallow the basket when an airborne shooter karate-kicks a legal defender in the face after releasing the ball.

Just call the shooter for swinging elbows while they do that and it, being a violation on the offense, will kill the ball instantly....and then call the T.

AremRed Tue Jan 06, 2015 04:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 948906)
Just call the shooter for swinging elbows while they do that and it, being a violation on the offense, will kill the ball instantly....and then call the T.

Just like I never call a T for slapping the ball out of a thrower's hands cuz I call the delay of game first! I like it.

Nevadaref Tue Jan 06, 2015 05:13am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 948910)
Just like I never call a T for slapping the ball out of a thrower's hands cuz I call the delay of game first! I like it.

I really hope that you're not serious.

BillyMac Tue Jan 06, 2015 07:34am

At Least A Warning Is Written In The Scorebook ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 948910)
Just like I never call a T for slapping the ball out of a thrower's hands cuz I call the delay of game first! I like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 948911)
I really hope that you're not serious.

I've often wondered (technically, not by application) how one (cross boundary) can happen before the other one (slap), and still be ignored (with the exception of a warning being written in the book).

Nevadaref Tue Jan 06, 2015 08:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 948914)
I've often wondered (technically, not by application) how one (cross boundary) can happen before the other one (slap), and still be ignored (with the exception of a warning being written in the book).

That's like asking why a player doesn't receive a flagrant technical foul for each punch that he throws during a fight.

AremRed Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 948911)
I really hope that you're not serious.

I'm not. :) Called my first one this summer!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1