2015-16 The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules ...

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You also need to read Rule 9-9 that says very clearly:



You do not have TC in the FC by touching the basketball. You have to first possess the basketball to establish TC in the FC. A throw-in only has TC out of bounds, which is not apart of the rule to have a BC violation.

Rut, what are you missing? You said this. The case play refutes what you are saying. It can be possible to have TC in FC without a player actually possessing the basketball, but not on a throw in, but in the case play it is possible.

I understand that the original question was about a throw in, but your blanket statement is only half right. You need to re-read my original post. I said that the case play didn't apply to a throw in.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Rut, what are you missing? You said this. The case play refutes what you are saying. It can be possible to have TC in FC without a player actually possessing the basketball, but not on a throw in, but in the case play it is possible.

I understand that the original question was about a throw in, but your blanket statement is only half right.

I was not making a blanket statement about anything. We were only talking about a throw-in, specific to a question that was asked by Geof. We were not talking about all situations for a BC violation. It seems to me you pulled out something and tried to make a point while not reading the entire conversation. I was answering a question about a throw-in. But even what I said still applies to all situations. Because if you did not first establish player control, you will not have team control. But that was not the point of the comments you quoted.

It is like I made a comment about requirements to be a US Senator but you are talking about what it takes to be President. Well, some of the basic requirements are the exact same, but there are some differences. I was not talking (and it is obvious if you read all the comments) about a player that has established TC in-bounds (FC or BC status) and the ball being tipped around and causing a violation. We were only talking about a throw-in (very specific) and why it would not be a violation if Team A touches or taps a ball in the FC and goes and touches it in the BC. There were like 4 other people that made the very same point but used different words.

Peace

[SC Official]

OKREF posted a case play that contradicted a blanket statement you made, and you proceeded to state your disagreement with that case play. It really is that simple.

No hard feelings, but that is what happened.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

OKREF posted a case play that contradicted a blanket statement you made, and you proceeded to state your disagreement with that case play. It really is that simple.

No hard feelings, but that is what happened.

Jeff was talking specifically about TC after a throw-in, which was a question brought up by Geof. TC control does not carry over from the throw-in, it must be established inbounds before there can be a BC violation. That's how I read Jeff's initial response.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Jeff was talking specifically about TC after a throw-in, which was a question brought up by Geof. TC control does not carry over from the throw-in, it must be established inbounds before there can be a BC violation. That's how I read Jeff's initial response.

OKREF was responding to Rut's statement.

You do not have TC in the FC by touching the basketball.

He posted the case play that contradicts this statement, which is the play we have been debating.

[Raymond]

Well, after a throw-in you don't have TC simply by touching the ball in the FC. This discussion was prompted by a statement about throw ins.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

OKREF was responding to Rut's statement.



He posted the case play that contradicts this statement, which is the play we have been debating.

That is great, but OKREF tends to not read the entire conversation when he response to stuff. He can give all the case plays he wants, but at least can we talk about the actual conversation? The case play he was discussing was not about a throw-in, which is again is the "myth" we are trying to dispell and clarify the actual rule. I did not realize there was an confusion about a BC violation when the ball is already in play.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is great, but OKREF tends to not read the entire conversation when he response to stuff. He can give all the case plays he wants, but at least can we talk about the actual conversation? The case play he was discussing was not about a throw-in, which is again is the "myth" we are trying to dispell and clarify the actual rule. I did not realize there was an confusion about a BC violation when the ball is already in play.

Peace

If you were so concerned with what the "actual conversation" was, then I'm confused why you responded with your disagreement of the case play in question.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing.

You just have established control in the FC before you can have a BC violation according to the rule. And you must not be one of the exceptions stated in the rule either.

And that casebook play you mentioned does not go along with the written rule. When all else fails, I am going with the rulebook and what it states.