The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 19, 2017, 05:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane O View Post
I do get that but just my own personal experience makes me feel the rule interpretation is how the game should be called. Maybe they can write the rule better to more coincide with the interpretation, lol.
No, the interpretation is not how it should be called. Aside from the fact that there is no way to reconcile the interpretation with the rule, there are too many ridiculous outcomes.

Consider this. A1 holding the ball in the backcourt near the division line. B2, entirely in the FC, knocks the ball out of A1's hands such that it hits A1's foot. Violation? According to the interpretation, it would be.

Similarly, A1 dribbling near the division line but in the backcourt. B2, entirely in the FC, deflects the ball on the way up where it touches A1's hand again. When B2 touches the ball, it gains FC status. This, according to the interpretation would be a violation.

Both of those are just silly. Stick with the rule until someone can get on the committee to either change the rule or eliminate the erroneous interpretation.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #92 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 19, 2017, 06:13pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
No, the interpretation is not how it should be called. Aside from the fact that there is no way to reconcile the interpretation with the rule, there are too many ridiculous outcomes.

Consider this. A1 holding the ball in the backcourt near the division line. B2, entirely in the FC, knocks the ball out of A1's hands such that it hits A1's foot. Violation? According to the interpretation, it would be.

Similarly, A1 dribbling near the division line but in the backcourt. B2, entirely in the FC, deflects the ball on the way up where it touches A1's hand again. When B2 touches the ball, it gains FC status. This, according to the interpretation would be a violation.

Both of those are just silly. Stick with the rule until someone can get on the committee to either change the rule or eliminate the erroneous interpretation.
Every time I see this play discussed, I refer to it as Schrödinger's Violation -- the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

I wish there wasn't such an effort to stand by such an obviously awful interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #93 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 19, 2017, 06:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
That interpretation is utter nonsense. In no way does one touch occur in two places or at two different times, unless your name is Schrodinger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
Every time I see this play discussed, I refer to it as Schrödinger's Violation -- the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

I wish there wasn't such an effort to stand by such an obviously awful interpretation.
Yes indeed. Funny you should mention Schrödinger. You just put the umlaut on it that I didn't.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #94 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 19, 2017, 11:21pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Yes indeed. Funny you should mention Schrödinger. You just put the umlaut on it that I didn't.


How did I miss that? Great that we thought alike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #95 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 20, 2017, 12:20am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Is the only way to get Schrödinger with that umlaut to copy and paste?

Just asking.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #96 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 20, 2017, 03:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Is the only way to get Schrödinger with that umlaut to copy and paste?

Just asking.

Peace
No, you can get it by typing character codes.

Alt-0246 gives you: ö

That is, hold down alt as you would hold down the shift key for caps and, while holding it down, type 0246. Other numbers produce other special characters.

Here is a page that gives you several character codes: https://usefulshortcuts.com/alt-code...-alt-codes.php

I've always liked this one 8-Ž
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #97 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 01:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status.
A situation in a recent game brought this topic up again, sorry to re-hash.

Several feel that the ball cannot have FC and BC status "simultaneously". However, isn't that what happens when A1, in the BC, spins the ball so that it lands in the FC, and returns to him in the BC? I know that is regarding article 2 but still, it is a BC violation and the ball has that "Schrödinger " characteristic.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #98 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 03:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
A situation in a recent game brought this topic up again, sorry to re-hash.

Several feel that the ball cannot have FC and BC status "simultaneously". However, isn't that what happens when A1, in the BC, spins the ball so that it lands in the FC, and returns to him in the BC? I know that is regarding article 2 but still, it is a BC violation and the ball has that "Schrödinger " characteristic.
No. the Ball has BC status then, when it bounces, it has FC status. When it returns to A1, it then has BC status.

It is only in one place at a time.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #99 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 11:34am
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
I still hate this interpretation.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #100 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 03:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
I still hate this interpretation.
I don't think this is an interpretation. This is the second (and less common) reason for a back-court violation -- I think it's Article 2, where most back-court violations are due to Article 1.
Reply With Quote
  #101 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 04:23pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
The concept that a touch can simultaneously be the last in the front court and the first in the backcourt is an interpretation not supported by the rules.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #102 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 04:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
The concept that a touch can simultaneously be the last in the front court and the first in the backcourt is an interpretation not supported by the rules.
I misunderstood what you were referencing.
Reply With Quote
  #103 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 07:28pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
I could have been clearer than just ranting at the sky...
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #104 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 10:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
No. the Ball has BC status then, when it bounces, it has FC status. When it returns to A1, it then has BC status.

It is only in one place at a time.
I disagree. Not really arguing if it is or is not a BC violation however I do feel that the play is the same as:

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches.

Thus Schrodinger does indeed apply.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #105 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 22, 2018, 10:50pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
I disagree. Not really arguing if it is or is not a BC violation however I do feel that the play is the same as:

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches.

Thus Schrodinger does indeed apply.
So, in English, are you saying violation or not. It isn't.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Straddling the foul line scarolinablue Baseball 16 Fri May 10, 2013 01:10pm
"Short Gyms" Division Line is still Division Line? NoFussRef Basketball 16 Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:09pm
Division line phansen Basketball 4 Sat Jan 17, 2009 01:05pm
What was (is) the purpose of the division line? CMHCoachNRef Basketball 36 Fri Jan 16, 2009 05:24pm
Straddling the division line. mick Basketball 21 Wed Feb 09, 2005 09:56pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1