Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie
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?
|
It is a game, relax. All games have rules because someone felt there was a need for that rule. Now if you feel it is not a good rule, do not call the game that way or do not work that level. Then you will not have to worry about "why" the rule is the way it is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie
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.
|
One of the problems with the NCAA there is no casebook. So I cannot give you a specific rule reference. Even in NF the current rule is "interpreted" in the casebook and other NF literature. Also remember this is also a NCAA Women's rule and that is how they want it called. The reality is that is the way it is expected to be called on the Men's side as well, they just have not come out and put in black and white. Once again the issue is not what you or I think the rule is there for a good reason. They felt in necessary to form the rule to their specifications, not what you think it is. They are also not the NF either.
Peace