Shooting Technical

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are not changing a starter. You are invoking a rule that allows you to use anyone to shoot the technical foul shots. There is no exception to that rule either, which would be needed if you are going to prevent them from using that player to shoot a FT.

My understanding is a designated starter is someone you list in the book. If you do not change the starter, what you are allowed to do does not apply. Just like if a player got injured or sick, I hope you are not preventing them to have a sub if that is clearly the case?

Peace

Frankly, the wording of 3-2-2 clearly indicates you are legally changing a starter. Were it not for the case play, deecee would have been correct.

The case play changes things, obviously.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Frankly, the wording of 3-2-2 clearly indicates you are legally changing a starter. Were it not for the case play, deecee would have been correct.

The case play changes things, obviously.

This is semantics, but I disagree with you, but they do have the wording to say that anyone can shoot FTs for a technical foul. It does not indicated that is must be a starter in 8-3 on any level or that this only applies after a the game has started or the shooter after the 10 minute mark.

The case play makes it clear you have not violated the spirit of the rule in 10-1-2 IMO.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is semantics, but I disagree with you, but they do have the wording to say that anyone can shoot FTs for a technical foul. It does not indicated that is must be a starter in 8-3 on any level or that this only applies after a the game has started or the shooter after the 10 minute mark.

The case play makes it clear you have not violated the spirit of the rule in 10-1-2 IMO.

Peace

I am not arguing either of your points. 3-2-2a's wording is very clear. It allows the CHANGING of a designated starter for a T as one of several exceptions to avoiding a Team T for making such a change. It is explicit and unambiguous and would trump the substitute sitting a tick rule if not for the case play, which I would not have even thought to look up since the rule is so freaking succinct.

The anyone can shoot a T is a completely separate rule that has nothing to do with 3-2-2a. Absent the exception in 3-2-2a I would argue that a designated starter would have to shoot the T's and that 8-3 would not apply since substitutes are not eligible until the ball has become live to start a game. So the first opportunity would be after the first FT on the T.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

I am not arguing either of your points. 3-2-2a's wording is very clear. It allows the CHANGING of a designated starter for a T as one of several exceptions to avoiding a Team T for making such a change. It is explicit and unambiguous and would trump the substitute sitting a tick rule if not for the case play, which I would not have even thought to look up since the rule is so freaking succinct.

The anyone can shoot a T is a completely separate rule that has nothing to do with 3-2-2a. Absent the exception in 3-2-2a I would argue that a designated starter would have to shoot the T's and that 8-3 would not apply since substitutes are not eligible until the ball has become live to start a game. So the first opportunity would be after the first FT on the T.

Here is the thing, the case book says it is allowed and makes that very clear. That is the purpose of the case book to clarify things that might be confusing or may connect rules that may not seem to be working together. That is why I tell people that often that is why you need to read the case book more than the rulebook.

If you are still arguing what the rule should be, that is why the case book has a play covering this situation.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the thing, the case book says it is allowed and makes that very clear. That is the purpose of the case book to clarify things that might be confusing or may connect rules that may not seem to be working together. That is why I tell people that often that is why you need to read the case book more than the rulebook.

If you are still arguing what the rule should be, that is why the case book has a play covering this situation.

Peace

Rut I'm not arguing either. Im saying that the way the wording of the rule is is confusing, especially with a case play to go with it. The case play says exactly what to do and that's good but it doesn't match up with the wording.

If you changed a designated starter at say the 4 minute mark because of apparel and there was a T for dunking. After the T's are shot the coach says the original starter is now dressed properly and would like to enter the game. Would you deny him re-entry until the clock has been legally started?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

The sentence "changing a designated starter" implies exactly what it does. I do not disagree that we are applying the rule that allows anyone to shoot a T. In this case the wording is very succinct in that we can change one of the starters. This would mean that the player sent in to shoot the T is now considered a starter.

I didn't think the wording was ambiguous or needed more research until Nevada brought up the case play because to me that sentence pretty much spells out what can be done.

Looking at 8-3 adds ambiguity, IMO. "eligible substitute or designated starter"

The case play clears it all up, though.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

Rut I'm not arguing either. Im saying that the way the wording of the rule is is confusing, especially with a case play to go with it. The case play says exactly what to do and that's good but it doesn't match up with the wording.

If you changed a designated starter at say the 4 minute mark because of apparel and there was a T for dunking. After the T's are shot the coach says the original starter is now dressed properly and would like to enter the game. Would you deny him re-entry until the clock has been legally started?

My comment was not about you arguing (That is not my concern, that is why we are here right?), my comments were to inform you that this issue is cleared up by interpretation. That is the purpose of the interpretations; to clear up loose ends.

And you are not changing the starter, you are allowed to have anyone shoot that is eligible. Subs are eligible. Yes I would deny entry of any player removed until the clock has started first, just like any other sub situation.

Peace