Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
I don't see a need, that's the thing. Who cares? The penalty is the same, just pick one and go with it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
It's more of a "test taking" change, than a practical change.
|
Maybe it's because I'm a retired middle school science teacher? Maybe it's because I'm now an analytical chemist? Maybe it because I served several years on my local board's training committee? Whenever possible (and sometimes it's not possible), I like simple, cut, and dry answers to questions; right, or wrong; yes, or no; correct, or incorrect; true, or false; basket interference, or goaltending. The less debate, the better I like it, keeping in mind that this sometimes can't be avoided, especially with more open ended, complex situations.
Imagine some type of written test, maybe for initial certification.
A1 tries for two point goal. B1 touches the ball while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, while the ball is in the cylinder, and while the ball has a possibility of entering the basket. Official rules a goaltending violation on B1 and awards A1 two points. Is the official correct?
Hopeful basketball official newbie notes "ball in the cylinder" and answers, "No", because he deems "ball in the cylinder" to be indicative of a basket interference violation.
Rather than get into a debate about if, and why, both "Yes", and "No", answers might be correct, as we often debate here on the Forum when the NFHS is unclear about a particular rule, definition, play, or situation, wouldn't it be nice to have one cut, and dry, answer here, with no debate necessary?
Imagine how much time we would save debating things here on the Forum if the NFHS were
crystal clear on
all their definitions, and rules?
I sincerely believe that a careless mistake was made in 2005-06, not an announced editorial rule change. It's
simple to fix. Why not fix it?
If it weren't simple to fix (see team control/throwin/backcourt), I wouldn't try to fix it. I'm not that good at fixing complicated things. You should have seen me struggle to set all of my various clocks ahead one hour last weekend.
There are already enough players, coaches, and fans, that can't differentiate between basket interference, and goaltending. We really don't need any rules that feed into this myth.
The five part goaltending definition was good in 2004-05. Why wouldn't it be good in 2015-16?