Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
I just don't believe that the NFHS ever intended what we call the three points rule to apply during an interrupted dribble. I think that it was meant to apply to situations in which there is player control, and player control doesn't exist during an interrupted dribble. Right now, I'm on the side of calling backcourt violations in parts 1 and 3, but I'm far from sure that I'm right.
|
As you many times do NV, you're posting what you think without any backing from the Fed. There's no indication that the Fed wants us to rule any differently when there's an interrupted dribble.
|
BktBallRef, you're doing exactly the same thing. There is just as much indication that that the interrupted dribble is different as it is the same.
The mere fact that they call it an "interrupted" dribble suggests that A1 is not the same.
We have the ruling that says A1 does not have player control during an interrupted dribble. Dribbling also implies player control which, in reverse, says that if a player does not have control, they can't be dribbling. If they are not dribbling, they don't get the benefit if the 3-points rule.
|
Not true. I'm basing my interpretation on the rules that we have. NVRef is basing his interp on what he thinks the Fed meant for us to do (something that he's done before, even when faced with rule references). He's cited no rule to support his stand, while I have supplied cites that say an inteterrupted dribble does not cause the dribble to end and that a player who is dribbling doesn't attain FC status until all three points are in the FC.
There's no "suggests" to it. The rules are clear. What you guys are proposing is contrary to both those rules.