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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

Then do not have respect for me. You and the other guys insisting on picking a nit like this, is the reason I really do not care much for what you would say anyway. You did not read the conversation and tried to hold on to what was "wrong" about the conversation. You also did not read the other comments by others that said the same thing but some strange reason only picked on my comments.

You will get over it. If you don't, not my problem.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then do not have respect for me. You and the other guys insisting on picking a nit like this, is the reason I really do not care much for what you would say anyway. You did not read the conversation and tried to hold on to what was "wrong" about the conversation. You also did not read the other comments by others that said the same thing but some strange reason only picked on my comments.

You will get over it. If you don't, not my problem.

Peace

Rut, you flat out said that the case play that OKREF posted was wrong, even though the rules support it. It has nothing to do with the "throw-in." You said it was wrong, and then got defensive.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Rut, you flat out said that the case play that OKREF posted was wrong, even though the rules support it. It has nothing to do with the "throw-in." You said it was wrong, and then got defensive.

OK, if you say so. Again you did not read the situation and started talking about it without knowing the context. That is what Cameron was saying. It is also obvious that you did not know he edited his post and reference either.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, if you say so. Again you did not read the situation and started talking about it without knowing the context. That is what Cameron was saying. It is also obvious that you did not know he edited his post and reference either.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Peace

And it is clear that you refuse to take any blame for posting a blanket statement and an erroneous opinion about a case play.

Good day to you.

[bballref3966]

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