Quote:
|
[All this, compared to: 2 shots, ball OOB at the division line. The latter, you have to agree, was much simpler in implementation. [/B]
|
I always have had a problem with NF rules that are there just because it makes things less complicated or easier. That's the excuse they gave for taking away the jump ball and going to the AP. They said too many officials were tossing the ball poorly. The remedy is not to take the toss away, but do a better job of training officials to toss.
It's the same with the possession part of a technical penalty. It is inequitable since it penalizes a team on offense more than it does a team on defense for the same infraction. In the NBA, they recognize that a technical is something that happens "outside the normal play of the game". So, they "freeze" the game, shoot the technical and then "restart" the game where they left off. If neither team had team control at the time, they have a jump. I can't think of anything fairer than that. I really don't care if it's one shot or two, just so the possession aspect is taken out. The NF has it in because it makes it easier to administer (I was told this by someone at the NF a few years ago). I contend this is a piss-poor reason to have a rule.
While we're at it regarding equity, how about shooting player control fouls? Why not? Aren't they just as wrong as a foul committed by a player without the ball? Why should the fact that a player was in player control when he commits a foul mean that foul is any less serious?