2015-16 The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules ...

[JRutledge]

I am trying to figure out why you were even involved in this conversation in the first place when you did not read the actual question that was commented on?

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am trying to figure out why you were even involved in this conversation in the first place when you did not read the actual question that was commented on?

Peace

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

I am involved because I disagreed with your erroneous opinion of the case play in question. It's not that complicated.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

I am involved because I disagreed with your erroneous opinion of the case play in question. It's not that complicated.

Again, what was erroneous about my opinion? We were talking about a thrown-in rules as it relates to a violation for BC. We were not talking about what you assumed to be a unilateral comment (which I am trying to figure out why my statement was assumed to be unilateral anyway, but happens to apply to even all parts of the rule BTW). I was answering a question which was answered by others the same way, but you are going after my comments as if I was giving and opinion when the rules were actually referenced.

OK.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, what was erroneous about my opinion? We were talking about a thrown-in rules as it relates to a violation for BC. We were not talking about what you assumed to be a unilateral comment (which I am trying to figure out why my statement was assumed to be unilateral anyway, but happens to apply to even all parts of the rule BTW). I was answering a question which was answered by others the same way, but you are going after my comments as if I was giving and opinion when the rules were actually referenced.

OK.

What was erroneous about your opinion was addressed in the case play that we have been debating. You made a blanket statement, whether or not you intended to, and you disagreed with the case play despite the fact that it makes sense given the rule and I pointed out the relevant rules to you.

No one is disagreeing with you on your points about a throw-in. But you explicitly stated that the case play was erroneous, and that's what we have been debating. I don't know what you don't understand about that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

What was erroneous about your opinion was addressed in the case play that we have been debating. You made a blanket statement, whether or not you intended to, and you disagreed with the case play despite the fact that it makes sense given the rule and I pointed out the relevant rules to you.

No one is disagreeing with you on your points about a throw-in. But you explicitly stated that the case play was erroneous, and that's what we have been debating. I don't know what you don't understand about that.

The caseplay he was discussing at first was the one about the throw-in. That is the one I was discussing. But again, what did that have to do with my comment you quoted? The comment you keep quoting actually applies across the board. You cannot have Team Control until a player has control of the ball. That is basic in the rule. Not partial to a throw-in situation.

Here is an example:

A1 has the ball in Team A's FC. A1 passes a ball to A2, which is stolen and possessesd by B1 who then dribbles the ball. A3 knocks the ball away from B1 off of B1's leg. As the ball rolls away from B1, A3 hits the ball into Team A's BC, first touching the ball in their FC and then again in their BC where A3 gets possession of the basketball.

There is no BC violation as Team A or A3 never got player control of the ball until the ball was in their FC despite touching the basketball.

So until you have PC you do not have TC. Unless you can show me some rule that contradicts that, I will be waiting (well not really).

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The caseplay he was discussing at first was the one about the throw-in. That is the one I was discussing. But again, what did that have to do with my comment you quoted? The comment you keep quoting actually applies across the board. You cannot have Team Control until a player has control of the ball. That is basic in the rule. Not partial to a throw-in situation.

Here is an example:

A1 has the ball in Team A's FC. A1 passes a ball to A2, which is stolen and possessesd by B1 who then dribbles the ball. A3 knocks the ball away from B1 off of B1's leg. As the ball rolls away from B1, A3 hits the ball into Team A's BC, first touching the ball in their FC and then again in their BC where A3 gets possession of the basketball.

There is no BC violation as Team A or A3 never got player control of the ball until the ball was in their FC despite touching the basketball.

So until you have PC you do not have TC. Unless you can show me some rule that contradicts that, I will be waiting (well not really).

Peace

Rut, it's really simple. Once Team A establishes true TC in the BC, they retain control until Team B secures control. So, the pass to the FC that touches a Team A player would establish TC in the FC, even if that player does not gain control. It's not that difficult to understand, and that's what the rule is.

I really don't understand what you don't get. You disagreed with an official NFHS case play that doesn't contradict the rules, and that's why were are having this debate. It doesn't make sense for you to keep acting like that's not the case. Likewise, it doesn't really make sense that we're having this argument either.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Rut, it's really simple. Once Team A establishes true TC in the BC, they retain control until Team B secures control. So, the pass to the FC that touches a Team A player would establish TC in the FC, even if that player does not gain control. It's not that difficult to understand, and that's what the rule is.

I really don't understand what you don't get. You disagreed with an official NFHS case play that doesn't contradict the rules, and that's why were are having this debate. It doesn't make sense for you to keep acting like that's not the case. Likewise, it doesn't really make sense that we're having this argument either.

When will the two of you realized that one of you is talking about a throwin and the other is talking about a ball that is already inbounds?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

When will the two of you realized that one of you is talking about a throwin and the other is talking about a ball that is already inbounds?

I realized this a long time ago and as far as I am concerned this is settled. Don't really care at this point.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Rut, it's really simple. Once Team A establishes true TC in the BC, they retain control until Team B secures control. So, the pass to the FC that touches a Team A player would establish TC in the FC, even if that player does not gain control. It's not that difficult to understand, and that's what the rule is.

I really don't understand what you don't get. You disagreed with an official NFHS case play that doesn't contradict the rules, and that's why were are having this debate. It doesn't make sense for you to keep acting like that's not the case. Likewise, it doesn't really make sense that we're having this argument either.

Maybe one of these days you will realize that we were talking about a throw-in and the first reference was to a throw-in in the case play and that your boy changed it after the fact, you might "get it."

There is nothing to understand when we were only talking about a throw-in play from day one. Thanks for the advice. My position is not going to change on this, no matter how many times you post this. You must have PC before you can have TC at all times in our game. And you must have TC in the FC at some point to have a BC violation across the board!!!

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I realized this a long time ago and as far as I am concerned this is settled. Don't really care at this point.

Peace

If you didn't really care, you wouldn't keep arguing. And if the case play that OKREF posted was irrelevant to the original discussion, why did you respond saying that it didn't go with the rule?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Maybe one of these days you will realize that we were talking about a throw-in and the first reference was to a throw-in in the case play and that your boy changed it after the fact, you might "get it."

There is nothing to understand when we were only talking about a throw-in play from day one. Thanks for the advice. My position is not going to change on this, no matter how many times you post this. You must have PC before you can have TC at all times in our game. And you must have TC in the FC at some point to have a BC violation across the board!!!

Peace

Maybe one of these days you'll realize that the only reason this thread got off topic was because you made a erroneous blanket statement and were correctly called out for it.

Either you haven't read what I've posted that addresses this, or you just don't want to admit that the rule supports my position and the case play.

[bballref3966]

Is there really a reason for this thread to be open anymore?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

If you didn't really care, you wouldn't keep arguing. And if the case play that OKREF posted was irrelevant to the original discussion, why did you respond saying that it didn't go with the rule?

Having a discussion in this board is not about caring. Not a single thing I will do this year will be affected by this conversation.

You obviously care because you keep trying to debate an issue that was never involved in the OP as if I am going to admit to something or change my position. Then again, life will go on either way.

The case play (which he went back and edited) involved the case play that most people here have disagreed with and I commented on.

This is a Sunday afternoon after my football season has basically ended.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Maybe one of these days you'll realize that the only reason this thread got off topic was because you made a erroneous blanket statement and were correctly called out for it.

Either you haven't read what I've posted that addresses this, or you just don't want to admit that the rule supports my position and the case play.

There is nothing to admit. The case play (not originally posted) posted has nothing to do with a throw-in. We were talking about a throw-in. My comment unilaterally applies to all BC violations. You have to have PC in order to have TC to then have TC in the FC. If you do not have TC in the FC, all taps and touches does not give you FC status on a throw-in until you have PC at some point and then TC in the BC.

Nothing to admit when that is the rule across the board.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Maybe one of these days you'll realize that the only reason this thread got off topic was because you made a erroneous blanket statement and were correctly called out for it.

Either you haven't read what I've posted that addresses this, or you just don't want to admit that the rule supports my position and the case play.

This is what happen---

Jeff responded to Geof's comment about throw in and BC. He said a tip in the front court does not give TC. If you read his first sentence and the sentence after that comment you would realize he was clearly talking about a throw in. OFREF saw the tip statement and perceived it to be a blanket statement. He accidentally took it out of context and cited a case play dealing with a player inbounds. It had nothing to do with the throwin.

Jeff, instead of saying we are talking about a throw in and that play has nothing to do with this, said the play was wrong and didnt follow the rule. I posted because i thought jeff was saying that that play was wrong in every which way. The case play was correct and followed the rules just not the rules in the discussion. I realized after seeing his other posts that he was still thinking throw in. You were still thinking that he was claiming the case play was wrong as it existed. I dont think either of you were ever on the same page as to what each was saying.
so... OKREF cited a play that didnt apply. Jeff could have said that instead of it was wrong... Life is too short. lets talk about something else.