2015-16 The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules ...

[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.

[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.