2015-16 The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules ...

[OKREF]

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?

The case play I referenced is irrelevant to the original question. I was just pointing out that what he said about a touch was not 100% correct. That's all.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The case play I referenced is irrelevant to the original question. I was just pointing out that what he said about a touch was not 100% correct. That's all.

Why is it not 100% correct? If you have not established TC, you do not gain control by a touch. On a throw-in you still have to gain TC which starts by PC.

Peace

[OKREF]

Nevermind.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Rut, the above highlighted statement you made is not 100% accurate. When dealing with the throw in yes it is, but the case play shows another scenario where simply touching the ball in the FC is TC.

The TC was when A1 was dribbling in the backcourt. TC was maintained through the touch in the FC and the ball returning to the BC. TC was not established by touching the ball in the FC.

If A1 had been dribbling in the BC, lost the ball into the FC, it was touched by B2, then touched by A2, then bounded in the BC and retrieved by A1, it would still be a BC violation.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The TC was when A1 was dribbling in the backcourt. TC was maintained through the touch in the FC and the ball returning to the BC. TC was not established by touching the ball in the FC.

If A1 had been dribbling in the BC, lost the ball into the FC, it was touched by B2, then touched by A2, then bounded in the BC and retrieved by A1, it would still be a BC violation.

When they say team control must be established in the FC they are saying that before you can have BC violation there must be team control in the FC. They are not saying that team control has to begin in the FC.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The TC was when A1 was dribbling in the backcourt. TC was maintained through the touch in the FC and the ball returning to the BC. TC was not established by touching the ball in the FC.

If A1 had been dribbling in the BC, lost the ball into the FC, it was touched by B2, then touched by A2, then bounded in the BC and retrieved by A1, it would still be a BC violation.

And that also means that B did not gain TC by the touch either.

This is why I am completely lost by his point. It makes no sense to me.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And that also means that B did not gain TC by the touch either.

This is why I am completely lost by his point. It makes no sense to me.

Peace

Rut, A5 has the ball in back court(which means they have team control) A5 passes the ball to A3 standing in the front court, the pass bounds off of A3's leg, hits B1 in the leg, A3 reaches for the ball and knocks the ball into the back court, A5 is the first to touch the ball in the back court.

This is a backcourt violation, Team A still had team control because team B never possessed the ball. Team A was last to touch in front court and first to touch in back court.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Rut, the above highlighted statement you made is not 100% accurate. When dealing with the throw in yes it is, but the case play shows another scenario where simply touching the ball in the FC is TC.

Again, we were talking about a Throw-in, that is why the statement was made. And the statement was only about a throw-in. But since we you want to pick nits, I will wait for why it is not 100% correct.

But you still have to have TC which can cross the BC to the FC.

I am not seeing at all your point. You have not stated why it is not correct. If it isn't correct, what about it is not correct?

If you are trying to suggest that having the ball in the BC and having TC has anything to do with a touch on a pass in the FC, then you really are stretching what I said. Then again, this is your point of view that often comes from weird places IMO.

Peace

[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.

If you read your own reference in 4-12-2a, that says:



Ending a throw-in does not automatically establish TC or even player control.

Peace

Rut, I read this as you saying there had to be a player possessing the the ball in the FC. Yes you must first possess the ball. This possession could happen in the BC. Then when the ball is passed from BC to FC and A only touches the ball, and goes BC and A touches it it's a BC. Please remember, I am not talking about a throw in.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Rut, I read this as you saying there had to be a player possessing the the ball in the FC.

Really??

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes you must first possess the ball.

Duh!!!

Originally Posted by OKREF

This possession could happen in the BC.

OK, but we were only talking about a throw-in as it relates to the ball being tapped and bouncing around from the FC to the BC. This would not apply if the throw-in pass was touched in the BC first or only.

Originally Posted by OKREF

Not talking about a throw in at all. We are actually in agreement, I think, and I read it wrong.

Yes you did. We never were talking about any other kind of situation. That is why I am confused as to why you are trying to hold on to what is or is not 100% correct.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Really??



Duh!!!



OK, but we were only talking about a throw-in as it relates to the ball being tapped and bouncing around from the FC to the BC. This would not apply if the throw-in pass was touched in the BC first or only.



Yes you did. We never were talking about any other kind of situation. That is why I am confused as to why you are trying to hold on to what is or is not 100% correct.

Peace

These kinds of responses are why I will never, ever have any kind of respect for you. I just said I miss read what you typed and you come across like you do. There are a lot of people on here who, when they have something to say I really take it in a listen to, however you are certainly not one of them. It's all good though, have a great day.

[bballref3966]

Why is this thread still open? To watch a p*ssing match?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The case play I referenced is irrelevant to the original question. I was just pointing out that what he said about a touch was not 100% correct. That's all.

No case play is 100% correct either. Many statements are contextual. You missed the context of the statement. Let it go.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No case play is 100% correct either. Many statements are contextual. You missed the context of the statement. Let it go.

What is this supposed to mean?