![]() |
|
|
|||
If the airborne shooter commits a technical or intentional foul or if a foul committed by a player in the act of shooting is part of a double-foul.
|
|
|||
Quote:
So A1 is disqualified, A scores two points, and B1 is awarded two free throws. If B1 misses either free throw, the game will end and A will have won the game. However, if A1's foul is a common PC foul instead, A does not score two points and we're going to overtime. It doesn't quite seem fair that a more severe foul here can potentially benefit A. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
I vote for this.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
If airborne shooter A1 commits an intentional personal foul, then the goal counts and there cannot be any carry-over to future games. |
|
|||
If I have good game awareness and the presence of mind to recognize the impact of my call choice, I'm going with the PC foul even if it could have been intentional or flagrant (assuming it was at least a 50/50 or better case of B1 having legal guarding position). Indeed, I don't want to reward Team A here. Let the players determine the outcome the way it should be determined, i.e. in overtime.
Of course if this is college, especially NCAAM, with the restricted area and all, I have a lot more to think about. Damn, that's a tricky one. Great officials have all of these possible outcomes figured out in advance like chess players during closing seconds of close games. I am not a great official. Yet? |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
It's not about purposely making an incorrect call. It's about choosing the appropriate application of the rules, and in this case the boundary between PC/intentional and intentional/flagrant is subjective to begin with. That said, in defense of dignity, I suppose if the personal foul were blatantly flagrant, I wouldn't have much of a choice because the DQ of that player would be very important at that point. I'll give you that. Officiating is an art, not a science. Last edited by crosscountry55; Mon Jan 05, 2015 at 11:40pm. |
|
|||
I knew you (and some similar others) would know -- I was hoping to get some of the newer officials into the book.
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCAA 2.12 question | snorman75 | Basketball | 1 | Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:31am |
NCAA Rule change? - Question #57 NCAA Test | ljudge | Football | 2 | Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:21am |
NCAA question | voiceoflg | Baseball | 3 | Thu Apr 26, 2007 08:52am |
NCAA, Question 50 | FVB9 | Baseball | 11 | Mon Mar 28, 2005 09:56pm |
NCAA Men's Question | TGR | Basketball | 6 | Thu Jan 16, 2003 01:45pm |