Tue May 31, 2005, 05:49pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
I think you're giving the Fed way too much credit. It appears as though they once again haven't thought the whole thing through clearly. They had enough whatever to get the rule written adequately for dunking, but it didn't occur to them to consider any other meaning their words might have. Maybe that's unfair of me, but if they thought about defensive BI in the manner we're discussing, why not mention it one way or the other, or at least have a case play? I think they just didn't think about it.
|
I'm not sure it's an issue of thinking through things, but more like an issue of not writing down every little possible scenario. Who would've thought back in JR's day there would be dunking?  As plays and things become more prevalent, they address those issues with rules and cases. So that's probably why they don't have any case plays covering this yet, because I'm not sure before last night there were many people that have seen a similar play. But as players become more athletic and skilled they will probably have to address this in the future.
Now, I know I'm simply guessing here, but I wonder if the advantage/disadvantage theory would come into play somewhat. Using the same theory on a 3-sec. call - if an offensive player gets "trapped" in the lane by the defense, and is making an effort to get out, I would not call a violation. Similarly, if the offense caused the defender's hand/arm to enter the cylinder and there was already contact on the ball, I can't see penalizing the defense. However, if the defense puts their hand/arm in the cylinder on their own before contact with the ball, that seems more likely to be a violation. Now I know that's reading a lot more into it than what's written, but it seems a practical alternative and easier to explain, until there is specific direction from the NF and NCAA.
|
Of course, you're right about the sequence of how the thoughts occurred. They were addressing the stuffing and not the defensive contact with the stuffed ball, becuase, as you point out, that had probably never happened. Jurassic is reading that clearly into the rule as written, and it's one reasonable interpretation. But there could easily and reasonably be other interps, as others have pointed out, and that ambiguity needs now to be addressed. At least in the NBA and NCAA. Practically speaking, we're not going to see a lot of this in the NF for a while, I don't think. When my 6th grade girls games begin with a description of the stuffing and dunking exception and how it applies to the defense, I'll write a letter to the rules committee to get them off their duffs and get to work!
|