Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
2. Here is an example of how poorly the committee's interpretation of this rule is:
Make the call on this play. A1 is OOB for a throw-in. B1 is guarding the thrower. A1 releases the ball on a throw-in pass, and B1 jumps in the air attempting to deflect the pass, but does not touch the ball. B1 then lands directly in front of A1, who is still OOB in the throw-in spot, with his feet squarely on the OOB line. In entering the court A1 runs directly into, over, and through B1.
Is this a player control foul on A1? Remember B1 has his feet OOB when A1 runs over him.
Is this a block on B1? Remember A1 has his feet OOB at the time of contact, since he has just finished a throw-in and is returning to the court.
Is this a double foul since both players have feet OOB?
Is this there nothing to be called?
Take that rules book editor!
|
nevadaref,
Is this a player control foul on A1? Of course not; where is the ball?
Is this a block on B1? Of course not; who initiated the contact?
Is this a double foul since both players have feet OOB? Of course not; who initiated the contact?
Is this there nothing to be called? Of course not; who initiated the contact?
Take those rule books, ... and read some more, ref-editor!
Legal guarding position does not apply to every case of contact. It protects the proper defender from certain offenses against him. You are attempting to twist a clarification into a silver slipper for all occasions.
Why?
mick
|
Mick, You wrote this 4 hours after I posted this correction:
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
"You're right. I goofed. Since A1 has released the ball, I should have written charging foul on A1.
Try the question now."
|
By your process of elimination responses, I gather you believe that a charging foul on A1 is the proper call. My point in this post is that this is a block/charge play for which the correct call is obvious, but under this new interpretation the proper call will no longer be correct because the defender has a foot on the OOB line.
As for this non-sequitor comment:
Quote:
|
Originally posted by mick Legal guarding position does not apply to every case of contact.
|
I never said it did, but it certainly does apply to block/charge situations, which is what this play is.
The rules committee hasn't given the consequences of this "interpretation" proper consideration.
Care to consider my point now?