Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
Probably so. However, the arguments made to preclude this from the rule book don't bear up to scrutiny in my opinion. It's not like I'm asking for another rule. If that were the case then the frequency argument might have some force. I'm asking for an extension to the BI definition. I'm not asking for anything that would require any additional judgment on the part of the official.
The main argument I'm hearing against this is it doesn't happen very often. Neither are gyms with fan shaped backboards, but we have a rule for it. I bet the frequency of hitting the backboard while the ball is on the rim is greater than the number of high school gyms with fan shaped backboards.
If a player hits the backboard in disgust while the ball is on the rim, we T up the offender and if the ball falls of the rim we can't award a basket. How does that make any sense?
|
I hate doing this, but allow me to quote myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
The committee clearly wants to allow a defender the freedom of movement on an attempt to block a shot, and adding this restriction would reduce that freedom of movement with, essentially, zero real benefit.
|
My point is not that we shouldn't deal with it simply because it hardly ever happens. My point is that the benefits (virtually nil) are not worth the cost of reducing the freedom of movement the rules committee wants to allow on this defensive play.
My secondary point is that the multiple foul is not a good comparison. Apples and PCs.