Quote:
Originally posted by JeffTheRef
and a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Right?
|
Yes, but this does not seem to me to be a case of
foolish consistency. . .
Quote:
|
I call all the variations of this, especially the inbounder running to the other corner to take a 3, violations.
|
Wow. Uh, what possible justification do you have for this? The reason it's a T in the 3-seconds case is specifically b/c you can't call a violation if the player's not in the lane. So it has to be a foul. In the case of the case you mention above, there again is no violation committed, so it has to be a foul. Why would you go out of your way to incorrectly penalize an obvious case?
Quote:
|
Consider, by way of analogy, the change in the penalty for whipping of the elbows with nobody in the vicinity. It was specifically changed to a violation from a T because nobody in their right mind wanted to call a T in that circumstance.
|
Yeah, but nobody called it a violation while it was still listed as a T! That would've been an obviously incorrect penalty. Just as your first example above.
Quote:
|
10.3.4 (the T) is best reserved for extreme situations. For example, some player gets pissed off at a father in the third row of the stands and leaves the court to tell him so during a live ball. Bang, T.
|
No, 10.3.4B (last year's casebook, sorry) is best reserved for the
exact play that you describe: the inbounder running OOB before popping open for an open shot. That's exactly the play that is discussed in that case, and the penalty is specifically said to be a T.
If you get one of Hawks Coach's games, what are you going to do when you call the violation on his opponent, and Hawks Coach (who knows the rule) asks you what the violation was for? You're screwed. Just call it correctly. It makes it so much easier.