Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Let's take this a little further and add Rule 4-4 to the mix..
Ball location...ART. 5 . . . A ball which touches ..the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds...
Taken literally, if that thrown ball (or even a try) touched the backboard, it nullifies, by your interpretation, any 3-point possibility since it did touch the equivalent (by rule 4-4-5) of the floor. So, by the literal reading of the rule, and by your interp. it would be a three if it bounces off someones head and into the basket but not if it bounces off the backboard and into the basket. Can you see how silly this is getting?
|
Camron,
You have made a great point. In fact, you have made my original point, which was simply to show that when a ball hits a player (or in the instance that you point out the backboard) it is NOT that same as that ball actually hitting the floor. It is only to be treated as hitting the floor at that location if we have to make a judgment on the ball's location. This means whether the ball is inbounds, OOB, in the frontcourt, in the backcourt, etc. That is all that I was trying to say in the first place. Actually, if I had it to do over again, I would have chosen your example (as JR said in his first response, maybe I should pick another) to prove my point and not the one that I did select, but then look at the fascinating debate we would have missed!
Now, since three full pages of posts have gone by since I have last posted, I can finally say, after reading everyone's thoughts, the wording of the new RULE 5-2-1 (not casebook play) is simply TERRIBLE!!!
I agree with all of those that say this was written with the intent that we should no longer have to judge between a try and a pass. However, the rules committee chose their words SO POORLY that the absurd plays that many of us have concocted now result in awarding three points! The committee simply botched this one. The wording of the new rule is awful. I hope that my original post shows this. If we simply read the rule, 5-2-1, and analyze the play using it, we must award three points. Like MNREF I think this is stupid, but that is what they wrote! What should we do? Do we ignore what the new rule (and I am not talking about the casebook) says and only award two or do we enforce it AS WRITTEN (as the paragraph at the start of the rules book says to do) and give three?
Either way, we look bad, and it is the rules committee's fault. If nothing else, I hope that my original post highlights how poorly some of these rules are currently phrased. Can't they put someone on this committee who can write clearly?
My deepest regards to JR, Camron, Viking, MN, and the others who have taken the time to share their thoughts in this debate, and make us all better officials.
[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 18th, 2003 at 07:52 AM]