Could I have done anything?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

Where does it say that you HAVE to establish player control to establish team control? This make a descent argument against that.

It is a fundamental concept of the rules.

Here, for one:

ART. 5 . . . Team control does not exist during a jump ball or the touching of a rebound, but is reestablished when a player secures control.

Here is another, form the fundamentals at the front and in Rule 4:

While the ball remains live, a loose ball always remains in control of the team whose player last had control, unless it is a try or tap for goal.

That pretty much says that it stays with the prior team until the new team establishes player control. It wouldn't be any different from a situation with no team control.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is a fundamental concept of the rules.

Here, for one:



Here is another, form the fundamentals at the front and in Rule 4:



That pretty much says that it stays with the prior team until the new team establishes player control. It wouldn't be any different from a situation with no team control.

It is not a fundamental concept that you must have player control before establishing team control. There are 20 fundamental rules. This is not one.

Art 5 does not overrule Art 2. Art 2 says that you have team control during a pass.

You still did not answer my question about the casebook comment.

Edit: I am going to yield that you are correct about player control first then team control. I am sticking to my argument that batting the ball to a teammate (passing) established the player control.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

3. Of course you would not start your 10 count until there was player contol in the backcourt in your b5 rebounding situation. That is the rule.

How so? The 10 count is about team control, not player control. If there is team control, the 10 count starts the instant the ball goes into the backcourt. If, as you say, a bat starts team control, then it would start on a ball batted to the backcourt on a rebound. And if it were to another player, it would have to be a backcourt violation. But it isn't.

Just trust me, you can't have team control without having had player control first. That is rules 101.

As for your casebook reference, they have to spell it out that way because some people will try to insist there is team control when there has never been player control. That just is not the case.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How so? The 10 count is about team control, not player control. If there is team control, the 10 count starts the instant the ball goes into the backcourt. If, as you say, a bat starts team control, then it would start on a ball batted to the backcourt on a rebound. And if it were to another player, it would have to be a backcourt violation. But it isn't.

Just trust me, you can't have team control without having had player control first. That is rules 101.

Rule 9 Section 8. Paste it here for people to read and decide when to count. Then I can decide if I should trust you.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

Rule 9 Section 8. Paste it here for people to read and decide when to count. Then I can decide if I should trust you.

Not really relevant to this discussion, but if you insist....

Rule 9-8

A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

You can't have player control without also having team control, so all you really need to know with respect to the 10 count is that when there team control with the ball in the backcourt the count starts. There may or may not be player control too but it is completely irrelevant. The part about player control in that rule could be left out and it wouldn't change anything whatsoever.

Again....team control starts with player control, always. Batting the ball, even to another player, despite how much you want to twist the wording of the rules, does not constitute the start of player control. That phrase, as you've been told, only means to say that team control continues even when the ball is being passed.

[Raymond]

Is there a troll meme we can throw out there?

Dude is obviously not an official, or a very very poor one who is incapable of interpreting a rulebook.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by CJP

It is not a fundamental concept that you must have player control before establishing team control. There are 20 fundamental rules. This is not one.

Art 5 does not overrule Art 2. Art 2 says that you have team control during a pass.

You still did not answer my question about the casebook comment.

4-12-5 explains that 4-12-2 does not apply during rebounding. 4-12-5 is there specifically so people don't do what you are trying to do. It specifies (pretty clearly at that) the circumstances that allow team control to be re-established when it has been ended by rule.

By rule, there is no team control once the ball has become loose on a tap or try for goal until player control has been reestablished.

I'll be the first to argue that the basketball rules are poorly written (I still haven't found a rule that actually awards the first free throw in the 1 and 1, only the rule that awards the second if the first is successful). However, this issue is fairly clear if you'd actually look at what people are showing you instead of focusing on trying not to be proven wrong.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not really relevant to this discussion, but if you insist....

Rule 9-8


You can't have player control without also having team control, so all you really need to know with respect to the 10 count is that when there team control with the ball in the backcourt the count starts. There may or may not be player control too but it is completely irrelevant. The part about player control in that rule could be left out and it wouldn't change anything whatsoever.

Again....team control starts with player control, always. Batting the ball, even to another player, despite how much you want to twist the wording of the rules, does not constitute the start of player control. That phrase, as you've been told, only means to say that team control continues even when the ball is being passed.

So now you are saying parts of the rules could be left out to fit your narrative. Got it. I see a pattern here.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

4-12-5 explains that 4-12-2 does not apply during rebounding. 4-12-5 is there specifically so people don't do what you are trying to do. It specifies (pretty clearly at that) the circumstances that allow team control to be re-established when it has been ended by rule.

By rule, there is no team control once the ball has become loose on a tap or try for goal until player control has been reestablished.

I'll be the first to argue that the basketball rules are poorly written (I still haven't found a rule that actually awards the first free throw in the 1 and 1, only the rule that awards the second if the first is successful). However, this issue is fairly clear if you'd actually look at what people are showing you instead of focusing on trying not to be proven wrong.

There is a difference between touching a rebound and batting a rebound to a teammate. That is the foundation of the argument.

4.5 does not apply because it is not a "touch". 4.2b. applies because it is a pass.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Is there a troll meme we can throw out there?

Dude is obviously not an official, or a very very poor one who is incapable of interpreting a rulebook.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I may have not been an official very long but I am willing to ask questions and get better. I am getting something from this. Your insult really shows what kind of person you are. I do not want to partner up with anyone who thinks they know it all.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by CJP

There is a difference between touching a rebound and batting a rebound to a teammate. That is the foundation of the argument.

No, there's not. That's what 4-12-5 is telling you, but it seems to be a rule you want to leave out.

Originally Posted by CJP

I may have not been an official very long but I am willing to ask questions and get better. I am getting something from this. Your insult really shows what kind of person you are. I do not want to partner up with anyone who thinks they know it all.

Then, frankly, you wouldn't want to partner with yourself.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

No, there's not. That's what 4-12-5 is telling you, but it seems to be a rule you want to leave out.



Then, frankly, you wouldn't want to partner with yourself.

Asking questions and discussing an actual issue is not acting like I know it all. Insulting people about it does.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by CJP

Asking questions and discussing an actual issue is not acting like I know it all. Insulting people about it does.

Insisting that you're the only person correctly reading the rules when everyone else is telling you you're wrong is. And that's what you're doing. And frankly, it does look a lot like trolling.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Insisting that you're the only person correctly reading the rules when everyone else is telling you you're wrong is. And that's what you're doing. And frankly, it does look a lot like trolling.

Okay. Then I am done.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

...


Then, frankly, you wouldn't want to partner with yourself.

You win the Internets today.