|
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I resent you telling me I need to study the rules because I do. I just dont think that we need to rely on the past rules. They may only confuse officials. I understand the history behind most of the rules, but I also think that a new official, a coach, or an experienced official needs to have something definitive to rely on. They dont need to rely on all the past interpretations that were ever issued because they dont have them. certainly there are old guys around who can help with instruction but no one remembers or uses the old interps. They dnt need to since things have changed. I dont need to study the old rules to figure out the way a current game has to be called.
There may be old geezers around but how many times have we seen on this board an old geezer make a mistake because they forgot what the new rule was, that it was changed many years ago.
The current rules are the current rules, nothing more, nothing less.
The point is that there is no rule in the book that justifies a line-up! It was taken out of the rule book so how can you say any interpretation still allows it???
it just doesnot. It is not implied, it is not stated. If you had two newer officialson the floor and a coach says we used to do it, so it must be a paractice or procedure , would sure to make the new officials just run right out and do it.
So like I said if you want to take the philosophy that if it's not prohibited then it must be allowed is OK! And that would be the most acceptable stance regarding a line-up !!!Remember when there was the rule about interlocking arms becoming a T. It wasnt prohibited until a creative coach figured it out and then it was banned.
If you want to approach this under that philosophy I can buy it...but dont tell basketball officials that its a rule when its not because it has not been specifically allowed. If it was specifically allowed, it would be listed in the book.
I worked for a govt agency way too long and heard many employees say, "Well we used to interpret the rules that way" when the rules had been republished and parts left out and they did not stay up on the changes. Believe me when a rule gets enough questions asked about it then the interp goes in the book, If they still get too many questions then it is rewritten in the book. That's why in NF terms we have editorial changes. etc
So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one
|