Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
OK....but did he did this in this sitch?
|
In this case, what I feel is more important is the effect. In both cases, a player has a chance to make a play on the ball, but wes denied that opportunity.
|
OK...now what if the ball hit the bench before A1 had a chance to save it? How is this different?
|
The benches are where they are because the alternative is to orient them some other way, which is inefficient. Elements like cost (as a function of the size of the gym) quickly rise when we want 10 feet of unobstructed space on one sideline. We all know that that will not happen.
The bench does not have arms or legs that will protrude to touch the ball before the ball touches it.
The bench cannot think and realize that if I touch the ball, my team will get it. (It would need a brain and at least one extremity.)
And if it could, the bench cannot respond to my technical foul call. (It would need a mouth, or if the one extremity it had was an arm with a hand and a finger, it could show me his middle finger.)
This is different because of intent.
|
The bench, like the coach, are OOB, regardless of how many moving parts, how much cognitive ability or what the intent of either is.