2 FTs and the ball?

Adam

Is this where I'm supposed to say, "shut up?"

Nevadaref

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
FTR, is it safe to add that any intentional or flagrant personal foul must occur during a live ball?

Snaqwells wrote
Not necessarily, if an airborne shooter is involved.

Jurassic Referee wrote
Oh?

Rule 4-19-5(c)?

4-19-5 . . . A technical foul is:
...
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter.

So Snaqwells is correct. The airborne shooter may commit an intentional or flagrant personal foul while the ball is dead.

Jurassic Referee

Nevadaref wrote
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
FTR, is it safe to add that any intentional or flagrant personal foul must occur during a live ball?

4-19-5 . . . A technical foul is:
...
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter.

So Snaqwells is correct. The airborne shooter may commit an intentional or flagrant personal foul while the ball is dead.

Oh?

Are you sure that exception isn't just referring to a PC foul?🙂

Nevadaref

Jurassic Referee wrote
Oh?

Are you sure that exception isn't just referring to a PC foul?🙂

Yep, I'm sure. The following case book play says that an airborne shooter may be charged with an intentional or flagrant PERSONAL foul.

4.19.6 SITUATION B: Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul. (4-19-2, 3, 4)

Jurassic Referee

Nevadaref wrote
Yep, I'm sure. The following case book play says that an airborne shooter may be charged with an intentional or flagrant PERSONAL foul.

4.19.6 SITUATION B: Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul. (4-19-2, 3, 4)

Yup, they sure can...... if they happen to commit that foul as an airborne shooter while the ball is live. And if they commit the foul as an airborne shooter when the ball is dead, they could be charged with a technical foul too(as stated above).

It depends on how you read the related rules.

Adam

Jurassic Referee wrote
Yup, they sure can...... if they happen to commit that foul as an airborne shooter while the ball is live. And if they commit the foul as an airborne shooter when the ball is dead, they could be charged with a technical foul too(as stated above).

It depends on how you read the related rules.

I think the exception is pretty clearly not referring to a PC, as it refers to intentional or flagrant and not a PC foul.

Nevadaref

Snaqwells wrote
I think the exception is pretty clearly not referring to a PC, as it refers to intentional or flagrant and not a PC foul.

That is the point which proves this one. Player control fouls must be common fouls per the definition provided in 4-19-6. Since these fouls are intentional or flagrant they are not common fouls according to definition 4-19-2.

Therefore, this statement, "An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter" is definitely saying that when an airborne shooter commits an intentional or flagrant foul while the ball is dead it is not a technical foul. That is the exception.

Hey, have we just attempted to prove that JR is wrong? 😮 Is that allowed? Perhaps we should go check that other thread and make sure that we aren't doing something that we shouldn't be. 😉

Jurassic Referee

Nevadaref wrote
Hey, have we just attempted to prove that JR is wrong? 😮 Is that allowed? Perhaps we should go check that other thread and make sure that we aren't doing something that we shouldn't be.

Nah, you're OK.

I wouldn't recommend telling me what to post though. I know where you live.

« Previous Page