Inadvertent Whistle - what's the POI?

[Rich]

What Welpe keeps asking.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

What Welpe keeps asking.

See Camrons response. You can't get this clearly from the rules but the POEs set it out very clearly when rules changes made. Which is obviously why they didn't make it in rules.

[Rich]

I know the whole discussion. I'm just amazed that you have to go through such gymnastics to describe it.

In the meantime, I'm likely giving it back to A and putting it in play.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

I know the whole discussion. I'm just amazed that you have to go through such gymnastics to describe it.

In the meantime, I'm likely giving it back to A and putting it in play.

Well, I have had a recent head injury. And I do like to get it right. I wouldn't have to go through gymnastics if they'd put the POEs in rules.

[Rich]

Well, yeah. That's my point. How many officials actually understand all this? a
For every one on this forum there are THOUSANDS who are not. How many associations cover this thoroughly?

No rule coverage, no caseplays....

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

Well, yeah. That's my point. How many officials actually understand all this? a
For every one on this forum there are THOUSANDS who are not. How many associations cover this thoroughly?

No rule coverage, no caseplays....

Preaching to choir. Drives me crazy. Elbow rule really aggravates me. Nothing in rules about it....

[BigCat]

The POE from 2014/15 discusses it. There's a better one somewhere. I plugged in "throw in point of emphasis" in Internet to find 2014 one...

[billyu2]

How would this play have been ruled in the years prior to the "team control" on a throw in rule change?

[Rich]

Let me know when this makes the rulebook or casebook. Till then, I'm out of this thread.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

Let me know when this makes the rulebook or casebook. Till then, I'm out of this thread.

Perhaps we can attempt to read a plate full of tea leaves to divine the ruling.

I know what I'm doing for now. If the Fed wishes to fix the rules, I'll adjust.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Perhaps we can attempt to read a plate full of tea leaves to divine the ruling.

I know what I'm doing for now. If the Fed wishes to fix the rules, I'll adjust.

It should be a lot clearer etc so i know where you are coming from. Here's something I'm thinking..and remembering why i say what I'm saying…in addition to the POE.

How long has the player/team control definition rule 4-12 been in its current form? I'm wondering and thinking it has been in its current form for quite a while. Team control when a player has disposal of ball for throw in has been there because that is the point when the other team is no longer allowed to call a timeout. The other portions of that rule deal with the ball once it is inbounds. I'm thinking that the actual wording in the definition of team control hasn't changed. 4-12.

What has changed, and I'm thinking the only thing that has changed, is the definition of "team control foul" in 4-19-7. They added the language to say it is a team control FOUL from start of throw in until ball secured. That is why i say they just created this artificial rule for fouls only. I don't think the definition of team control in 4-12 itself changed. They just wanted to reach a result of not shooting FTs. We know for 10 seconds, 3 seconds, 5 seconds etc there has to be team control inbounds.

If 4-12 has changed substantially ill have to rethink it. I DO AGREE IT SHOULD BE CLEARER. THE POE could be put in the rule.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It should be a lot clearer etc so i know where you are coming from. Here's something I'm thinking..and remembering why i say what I'm saying..

How long has the player/team control definition rule 4-12 been in its current form? I'm wondering and thinking it has been in its current form for quite a while. Team control when a player has disposal of ball for throw in has been there because that is the point when the other team is no longer allowed to call a timeout. The other portions of that rule deal with the ball once it is inbounds. I'm thinking that the actual wording in the definition of team control hasn't changed. 4-12.

What has changed, and I'm thinking the only thing that has changed, is the definition of "team control foul" in 4-19-7. They added the language to say it is a team control FOUL from start of throw in until ball secured. That is why i say they just created this artificial rule for fouls only. I don't think the definition of team control in 4-12 itself changed. They just wanted to reach a result of not shooting FTs. We know for 10 seconds, 3 seconds, 5 seconds etc there has to be team control inbounds.

If 4-12 has changed substantially ill have to rethink it. I DO AGREE IT SHOULD BE CLEARER. THE POE could be put in the rule.

Really, they should just fix the sloppy drafting that led to unintended consequences and required interps. They can get rid of this mess by taking TC out of the TI, and changing the def of a TC foul to a foul that occurs either (1) when there is TC, or (2) during throw in (with appropriate definition of when that ends for purposes of TC). Sometimes the instinct (not just here, but in life) is to try to tinker to fix rather than just identify the actual problem and go back and fix it properly.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Really, they should just fix the sloppy drafting that led to unintended consequences and required interps. They can get rid of this mess by taking TC out of the TI, and changing the def of a TC foul to a foul that occurs either (1) when there is TC, or (2) during throw in (with appropriate definition of when that ends for purposes of TC). Sometimes the instinct (not just here, but in life) is to try to tinker to fix rather than just identify the actual problem and go back and fix it properly.

This, this, this. Yep.

They've been tinkering for years now rather than fixing the mess they made. Now it seems like they're just being stubborn about it and refusing to acknowledge there's a problem.