Quote:
|
Some people do not feel you are playing defense at that position.
|
Frankly, that's an absurd view. If you are not playing defense, then it stands to reason that it would be easy for the offensive player to avoid contact, which would mean there's no reason for the rule.
Why would you not be playing defense when you are "directly" under the basket, but you are playing defense when you are inches away from being directly under the basket?
Quote:
|
if the person is dribblling the ball, they are a dribbler
|
Can you support that with a rules citation? I'm not trying to be picky here. If you look up the word, "intentional" in websters and compare it to how an intentional foul is defined, you will see different meanings. Besides, this doesn't square with the scenario I posted: it makes no sense to give protection to a dribbler becoming an airborne shooter, but not to give the same protection to a player receiving a pass who then becomes an airborne shooter.
If you like the rule, fine. But I think its stupid.