Quote:
Originally posted by psycho_ref
I think we should look at these as examples of situations where there is no team control and not the ONLY situations where there is no team control. Rule states "A player from the team not in control..." and gives the 3 examples/exceptions. Maybe it should also say "A player from 'A' team not in control". Saying "THE", suggests that there is a team in control, which contradicts the examples of 'jump ball, and throw-in'.
Does that make sense. The rule in itself, according to the english language contradicts itself.
I think they should just rewrite the whole thing to read:
"A player from A team not in control (E.G. defensive player or during a jump ball or throwin OR AFTER A MISSED SHOT)..."
Does anyone know how to make that change happen???LOL.
Am I making any sense here???
|
Yes, the language is poor, but not positively obtuse. We know from the evolution of the rule (from exceptions to incorporation within the rule) what's meant.
Think of it this way: "A player from the team not in control, that is, a defensive player, or [a player] during a jump ball or throw-in, may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt."
Would it be good for the game if the exceptions were expanded to include any loose ball backcourt situation where control is obtained in the air? There's the matter of judging at high speed whether or not a player is making 'normal landing' or trying to perch on one foot, thus giving up the exception. This would be more of that . . . not that that happens that often . . .