NCAA Men's question

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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......

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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

Let's hope not.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I really hope that you're not serious.

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