View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 05, 2001, 02:40pm
BktBallRef BktBallRef is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Re: Re: Re: Re: Occupy FT lane lines

Quote:
Originally posted by 112448

i understand "the point" of the rule, i just don't feel like the rule accomplishes what it sets out to do. my point is that there is still plenty of contact that occurs and with "rough play" yet again being a P.O.E. i'd like to see the rules committee take it a step further.

IMHO...less bodies on the lane = less opportunity for contact (legal or otherwise).
I think the only intent of the rule was to eliminate excess contact on made FTs. The rule does accomplish that purpose. I don't see that the NF was trying to accomplish any other goal.

On the surface, fewer players on the lane appears to be a good idea. But we weren't privy to the discussions, therefore we don't know what the reasoning was that left the rule unchanged.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote