View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 10, 2002, 02:06pm
Mark Padgett Mark Padgett is offline
certified Hot Mom tester
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918

Chuck, I read your previous post on this and also this one (obviously). I think you make some good points to support your position, but I think there can be points made the other way, also.

Here's what I mean. Your point that the casebook, while stating B1 can break the plane after the ball is released toward the court but does not specifically say he can then touch the ball, is a good point. But what is the sense of letting him break the plane if he can't touch the ball? Isn't trying to deflect the pass the reason he is breaking the plane in the first place?

One point I can't really refute well is the equity argument that if the offense can't do it, then the defense can't either. This same theory is used by the NF on a weird play involving the inbound where if A1 inbounds with a pass that goes over the cylinder and B1 jumps and touches the ball in the cylinder, it is BI, even though if the ball went in without being touched, it is a violation. The rationale is that if A2 touched the ball in the cylinder for an alley-oop, it is offensive BI, so if the restriction applies to the offense, it should apply to the defense also.

Frankly, I think they should change this rule. Not all NF rules are based on the equity theory anyway. Yeah - here's where I mention my pet peeve about including possession in the penalty for technical fouls, which is an inequitible penalty.

I always consider all restrictions to end on the defender when the inbounder releases the ball toward the court. However, on an inbound play following a made or awarded score, I call a T if B1 breaks the plane and touches the ball if A1 was passing to A2 who is also OOB. The key here is "toward the court", which is language straight from the rule book.
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote