Inadvertent Whistle - what's the POI?

[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.

[bob jenkins]

As we all said when this first came out -- if we can have (by definition) a PC foul when there is no PC, then we can have (by definition) a TC foul when there is no TC.

[MD Longhorn]

Bandaid on top of a bandaid on top of gauze over another bandaid and a cast, all topped by ACE and another bandaid ... at this point nothing's touching skin anymore.