[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... you are splitting hairs

I don't have to split any hairs to prove my statement that the rules, as written, are a perfect examples of circular reasoning. Assuming one knows exactly what circular reasoning is, just read the rules. No judgment is required to prove my statement, but judgment is required to understand what disposal really means in order to properly officiate a basketball game. One can't just learn the rules regarding such in a vacuum, intent and purpose are required.

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

4-4-7-d: A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is: Available to a player after a goal and the official begins the throw-in count.

4-42-3: The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the
disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.

Just read the three statements above, nothing more (pretend you're from another galaxy and don't know anything about the game of basketball), no purpose and intent, and tell me this isn't a pretty good example of circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by Raymond

There is no circular reasoning to this.