Which Side of the Lane Line?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you have a reading problem ...

Why haven't you figured out that I agree with almost everything that you say? Maybe tunnel vision?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... after a made basket, when time out is requested, and granted, with the ball still on the floor, after the timeout should officials inbound it for convenience sake, or should they inbound it as they were set up before the time out request (if the new trail was tableside, he should stay tableside after the timeout)? ... I like the later, with no rule change allowing the coach to select a side.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A coach should not have a right, by rule, to select which side of the lane he wants the throwin to occur after a timeout after a made basket.

It's not about lighted shoes. It's not about gloves. It's not about headbands with extensions. And it's no longer about which side of the lane to put the ball in play.

It's about your insistence that the NFHS would not confider a rule change (any rule change, not only equipment, or which side of the lane to put the ball in play) due to it's infrequency. I can (and already have) came up with NFHS rule situations that we seldom, if ever, see in a real game, in either Illinois, or Connecticut.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is an extremely rare request. Most officials probably never get this request and when they do, it is confusing ... And as a clinician with my state, this is never discussed because I doubt anyone gets this request.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The request is so rare, I bet no one even thinks about this. Why come up with a policy that never is an issue?

Forget lighted shoes. Forget gloves. Forgot headbands with extensions. Forget which side of the lane. Look at the big picture, breaking away from that tunnel vision. It's my opinion (based on some factual examples of rules that we very rarely see) that the NFHS will consider a rule change on several factors and will not automatically not consider a rule change just because it only happens only once in a blue moon. They might consider various factors like impact on the game, costs, impact on existing rules, unintended consequences, simplicity of enforcement, integrity of the game, advantage, disadvantage, improving the game, etc., but they won't automatically reject a rule change just because it only happens infrequently. Now if it never happens, and the NFHS believes that it never will happen, then I agree with you, that it wouldn't be considered, but the topic of this thread does happen, very rarely, almost never, but not never.

Will the NFHS consider a rule change if the situation happens only once, or twice, over several years? I'm not saying that they will, but I'm saying that they will not automatically reject the proposal based only on infrequency, but will consider other factors that may lead them to reject such a rule change.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I bet no one even thinks about this.

(Administer: Your honor, may I please treat the poster as a hostile poster?)

And you still lost your bet. You were dead wrong. Nothing will change that. Not telling me I can't read, and not telling me that we don't have real basketball in Connecticut. Now, just exactly what did you bet? Be a man, admit that you were wrong, be a good loser, or just be any old kind of loser, and pay up. Or, are you a welcher?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It is not I with the reading problem.

Why haven't you figured out that I agree with almost everything that you say? Maybe tunnel vision?

I did not think the issue was who agreed or disagreed. Maybe you have a reading problem.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's not about lighted shoes. It's not about gloves. It's not about headbands with extensions. And it's no longer about which side of the lane to put the ball in play.

Then why did you bring them up? Again, just like when you post a picture about a non-related topic. But that is what you do (like the Geico commercial).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's about your insistence that the NFHS would not confider a rule change (any rule change, not only equipment, or which side of the lane to put the ball in play) due to it's infrequency. I can (and already have) came up with NFHS rule situations that we seldom, if ever, see in a real game, in either Illinois, or Connecticut.

I do not care what the NF does, they currently have no specific handling of this situation. Is that not true? I do not see a rule or mechanics reference that suggests we do anything either way. We are again left to our opinion and our practices that we decide to use. That is the only point I have ever made here. You keep talking about other issues.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Forget lighted shoes. Forget gloves. Forget which side of the lane. It's my opinion (based on some factual examples of rules that we very rarely see) that the NFHS will consider a rule change on several factors and will not automatically not consider a rule change just because it only happens only once in a blue moon. They might consider various factors like impact on the game, costs, impact on existing rules, unintended consequences, simplicity of enforcement, integrity of the game, advantage, disadvantage, improving the game, etc., but they won't automatically not consider a rule change just because it only happens infrequently. Now if it never happens, and the NFHS believes that it never will happen, then I agree with you, that it wouldn't be considered, but the topic of this thread does happen, very rarely, almost never, but not never.

Will the NFHS consider a rule change if the situation happens only once, or twice, over several years? I'm not saying that they will, but I'm saying that they will not automatically reject the proposal based only on infrequency, but will consider other factors that may lead them to reject such a rule change.

If the NF decides to have a rules change, I will worry about it at that time. Right now, there is no such rule or procedure in any way. And again you keep posting as if you need my agreement to move on.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They (NFHS) currently have no specific handling of this situation. Is that not true? I do not see a rule or mechanics reference that suggests we do anything either way ... Right now, there is no such rule or procedure in any way.

Agree 100%.

Which is exactly why several Forum members can't agree on the interpretation of this very rare event.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then why did you bring them up?

They're called examples and are used as a part (and only a part) of a proof of a generality.

Debating 101.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

They're called examples and are used to prove a generality.

OK and still has nothing to do with my point of view on this issue. When the NF comes up with a procedure, we all can tell the officials we know what they should do and why. Right now we have nothing but an opinion either way, including mine.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Right now we have nothing but an opinion either way, including mine.

Agree 100%, and in regard to your interpretation opinion, I like it, while others may not.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

.. you keep posting as if you need my agreement to move on.

There's the matter of the bet. Then we can all mosey on along.