[Adam]

In deference to those who are ignoring the great prevaricator, I'm not going to quote him while I dismantle his newest line of bovine excrement.

First of all, what in the he!! is a "criterism?" I thought it was a typo, given your track record, but you used it twice.

Secondly, the analogy is poorly derived for two reasons. First of all, ball handlers aren't moving 55 mph (that's 88 kph for those of you north of the border and across the pond). Second of all, ball handlers are expected to not get so out of control that they can't alter their direction to avoid a player who was there before they left the ground. This may well be your third-worst analogy (behind the "medal of honor" and one other I'll not mention in polite company) since joining our happy enclave.

You cannot base your opinion on whether a defender is set on how much time is involved. The defender has no legal obligation. He's met the requirements of the rules, and you're going to take that away from him because you're afraid to make the tough call. Not only that, but you want to try to tell us the rules shouldn't be applied because it doesn't look or feel right to you. It's gutless.

The other problem with your thoughts is that the rule does take the offense into account. The defender has to be in position before the offensive player leaves the floor. That's right, both players are taken into account. If you don't like bang-bang plays, sit in the stands and yell at the refs.

Finally, in order to "intelligently apply" the rules, you need to know them. The key verb here is "apply." You can't intelligently apply anything if you refuse to acknowledge it.