Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
You are the one with the condescending,WTF and shrug stuff, remember? You started this , so don't even try to pull the I'm taking the high road stuff.
If you actually read what was said, 4-23 was in reference to parts of the rule book that are unclear HOW the NF want us to call something. When they changed the how to establish LGP rule 4-23 ART 2 to include playing court, not something simple like IN BOUNDS, they failed to spell out that inbound statis needed to be maintained. The rule AS WRITTEN says B1 can move OOB after establishing LGP. The NF had to issue an update to the change. That is what I was talking about, parts of our poorly written rulebook are ambiguous, and PATH is one of those parts.
There are only two ways to view path in closely guarded that make any sense:
1. It has no baring at all.
2. Path is between the player with the ball and the basket.
It is stupid to require a defender to re-establish path on an offensive player heading for a boundary. Do we expect B1 to try to stop A1 from GOING OOB? GOING OVER AND BACK?
|
BZ -- you're over-reacting a little to Dan, I think. He's not being hostile or confrontive, just grumpy and codger-ish.
And the fact of the matter is that you are absolutely right about the book: it isn't at all well written. What it comes down to is your opinion, my opinion or someone else's opinion. There's no grounds for slinging insults at Dan when he's interpreting things a little differently.
Basically, logic goes out the window when anyone tries to nail down this situation. There aren't any solid, well-thought-through "Supreme Court decisions" for us to build on.
I'm pleased that this discussion is happening. Perhaps the NF will realize that another clarification is needed, and give us something a little more definitive in the near future. [/B]
|
I don't think I over-reacted at all. You don't find writing, " How about a rule to back that up, I guess you can't...shrug," comfrontive and condescending? I do.
I explained why I felt that path was not clearly defined in the rule reguarding closely guarded several times. He chose to keep the what's the rule, shrug, WTF stuff up.
He even threw it at Chuck when Chuck said he understood the point I was making.
Sometimes we need to use common sense to interpret the rule book; stressing a poorly written rule book word for word, if that interpretation is completely illogical, does a disservice to the players we our officiating.