Shooting Technical

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You're welcome. Now say, "Always listen to Bob" ten times.

I thought I got him. But the rule as written is a bit misleading as written.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

I thought I got him. But the rule as written is a bit misleading as written.

I do not think it is misleading. You looked at this rule and stopped reading or researching. You are not changing a starter because you are allowing anyone properly to shoot a technical foul. You are applying the rule that allows anyone to shoot a technical foul.

Look at 8-3 that makes it clear anyone can shoot a free throw for a technical.

And this is also listed in 8.3 in the casebook, the exact example of this OP question.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it is misleading. You looked at this rule and stopped reading or researching. You are not changing a starter because you are allowing anyone properly to shoot a technical foul. You are applying the rule that allows anyone to shoot a technical foul.

Look at 8-3 that makes it clear anyone can shoot a free throw for a technical.

And this is also listed in 8.3 in the casebook, the exact example of this OP question.

Peace

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.

[JRutledge]

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.

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

[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.

[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.