Tag: 上海台北城市论坛KMT
90% of bar friends were wrong yesterday! How do you judge Yao Ming’s vertical take-off defense today?
The correct penalty (option) of Ryan’s leg-opening cover action we discussed yesterday is that the existing lens cannot be punished. In yesterday’s vote, only 7.7 percent of the bar friends made the correct judgment, and nearly 90% of the bar friends made the wrong judgment, which is a pity. Let’s talk about why we judge this way. First of all, Ryan’s action must not conform to the rules. Ryan expanded his cylinder range by opening his legs, which was illegal according to the rules; However, the key point is that if the defender contacts Ryan, the “illegal body part” and Ryan makes profits, then it is Ryan’s foul; if the defender is only in contact with Ryan’s “legal body part”-for example, a confrontation with Ryan’s chest-then Ryan’s cover will still be considered as a good cover. Let’s take a look at the picture below. The inside also opened his legs and turned over Dillon with the enlarged legs. That is, the inside made a profit by using a violation action, and the referee decisively blew away the cover foul. Back to Ryan’s action, yesterday’s action could not see whether Ryan was useful or not. Therefore, the correct penalty should be “the existing lens cannot be punished”. Let’s talk about a ball today. Yao Ming takes off vertically in the fair charge area (to avoid the discussion of the factors that affect Yao Ming’s vertical take-off, we set Yao Ming’s ball to take off 100% vertically), bynum had a physical confrontation with Yao Ming when he attacked the basket. How do you say this ball? The official explanation of the action discussed in this issue will be updated in the next issue of this column. Bar friends can click on the topic below to read it. ******************* How do you say this ball?
