Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch85
I too am less than 100% sure of the answer and am making up my arguments as I go.
|
You're not an attorney, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch85
I consider the ref to have the same IB/OOB location as a player because he/she can change their location. Objects like a backboard cannot. In addition, not all of the backboard is considered inbounds.
And the foot bone is connected to the ankle bone, the ankle bone is connected . . . well you know.  |
I know my backboard analogy may not be accurate, because the rules specifically state which parts are inbounds and which parts are out. But they are connected (backboard conneted to the bracket, the bracket connected to the support,...well, you know.
) And, the ball can touch the "inbounds part" without being considered OOB simply because that part is connected to something that is OOB. Follow the logic? So there is some basis in the rules for considering ball location to be inbounds even though it is touching something that is also connected to something OOB.
I'm not sure the "changing location" applies, although I see what you're getting at.
My hangup is still the issue of player location vs. object location. Even though an official is a person like a player, under basketball rules the official is closer to an object. (I don't like being objectified, but I guess it comes with the territory.)