2015-16 The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules ...

[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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

Life is short, but why talk about something else? If the person does not realize that we were even talking about one part of the rule after pointed out to him over and over, that is not my issue.

And then he tried to suggest that my statement did not apply to all situations, when it does. I am still trying to figure out that even on the situation he is discussing where PC is not first required before you have TC?

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Life is short, but why talk about something else? If the person does not realize that we were even talking about one part of the rule after pointed out to him over and over, that is not my issue.

And then he tried to suggest that my statement did not apply to all situations, when it does. I am still trying to figure out that even on the situation he is discussing where PC is not first required before you have TC?

Peace

I know when you say "my statement" you are meaning all of your sentences and dealing with a throw in. Others have interpreted your "statement" to be only the sentence which said something like "a tip in the front court cannot give TC in the FC." If the ball is inbounds in PC already a tip can give TC in the FC. That is what the other folks have been saying. I've seen what they have been saying and what you have been saying. I just dont think you guys are seeing what each is saying....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I know when you say "my statement" you are meaning all of your sentences and dealing with a throw in. Others have interpreted your "statement" to be only the sentence which said something like "a tip in the front court cannot give TC." If the ball is inbounds in PC already a tip can give TC in the FC. That is what the other folks have been saying. I've seen what they have been saying and what you have been saying. I just dont think you guys are seeing what each is saying....

You either had TC or you didn't have TC. On a throw-in (or jump ball) you have to first establish TC in-bounds (because you have TC out of bounds on a throw-in for foul purposes), you cannot have a BC violation until some type of control happens in-bounds. Touching the ball does not start that time. Talking about a play where TC has already been established is not what we were talking about.

I see clearly what he is saying, he just does not realize we were talking about a throw-in and then tried to suggest a comment I made did not apply, while not giving a reason of why it was wrong. You have to have PC first to establish TC. After you have established TC, you do not have to be in continuous PC to maintain TC and which is why you can have a BC violation when the ball is simply tipped away from an offensive player based on who and when the ball is touched.

I am not backing down from this point. I am simply not.

Peace

[BigCat]

[QUOTE=JRutledge;969295]You either had TC or you didn't have TC. On a Talking about a play where TC has already been established is not what we were talking about.

That was not what the original discussion was about. But that is what they switched to. you did not recognize that they switched to that. they did not recognize that you did not switch to that. How's that... the end for me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You either had TC or you didn't have TC. On a Talking about a play where TC has already been established is not what we were talking about.

That was not what the original discussion was about. But that is what they switched to. you did not recognize that they switched to that. they did not recognize that you did not switch to that. How's that... the end for me.

The conversation switched? I went back and looked and the comment that I was quoted for making took place in post #12. Geof had a question about his misunderstanding of the OP in post #5. Billy used the first 3 posts to complete his article. Where did the conversation change? OKREF posted a comment on post #13 and even had to edit his post (which I did not see immediately) and tried to suggest that this comment was incorrect:

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

I am still trying to figure out why that statement is incorrect when discussing a throw-in?

Peace