Made basket/throw in

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I never said that I don't use parameters outside the definition (proximity of the ball to the inbounder, time that the ball is available, etc.), to practically deem, or practically judge, disposal (after a goal).

Like you, I have to because the NFHS definition is so unbelievably poor.

But by the rulebook definition alone, determining disposal after a goal is an exercise in circular reasoning.

To dispute my last statement please show me a rulebook citation that includes parameters such as proximity of the ball to the inbounder, time that the ball is available, etc., in determining disposal after a goal.

Such citations don't exist, but you're welcome to try. Citation please.

Sometimes we just have to officiate. That's why we get paid the big bucks. Damn the rules. Damn the definitions. Full speed ahead.

You are allergic to the word "judgment". The rule says "available and the referee begins his count". That means somebody has to judge when it's available. Last I checked judgement belongs to officials, not players and not coaches.

The officials who make the really really big bucks are the ones who learned how to use their judgement in a common sense way when something is not spelled out explicitly in the rulebook.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The officials who make the really really big bucks are the ones who learned how to use their judgment in a common sense way when something is not spelled out explicitly in the rulebook.

Agree 100%. And thanks for making my point for me. My point that the definition of disposal (after a goal) "is not spelled out explicitly in the rulebook", that the poor definition, as it presently exists, is an example of circular reasoning, and that to properly officiate situations involving disposal after a goal a good official must exercise judgment, probably observing things such as proximity of the ball to the inbounder, time that the ball is available, etc.

4-4-7-D, and 4-42-3, on their own, with no further explanation beyond the actual written rules, as they presently exist, are perfect examples of circular reasoning.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree 100%. And thanks for making my point for me. My point that the definition of disposal (after a goal) "is not spelled out explicitly in the rulebook", that the poor definition, as it presently exists, is an example of circular reasoning, and that to properly officiate situations involving disposal after a goal a good official must exercise judgment, probably observing things such as proximity of the ball to the inbounder, time that the ball is available, etc.

4-4-7-D, and 4-42-3, on their own, with no further explanation beyond the actual written rules, as they presently exist, are perfect examples of circular reasoning.

Maybe for someone in your profession, but for most of us, we are not trying to parse words that deep. It is not defined any more than it needs to be IMO. There is also many interpretations and practice that suggest that if they have the ability to get to the ball, the ball is at their disposal. Of course, there are not always clear situations when that is all the time, but most officials I know give teams every opportunity to get the ball before starting a count. I do not see why it needs more definition as this is done nearly 60-70 times a game on some level. I do not think most situations are a struggle to know when a team has the ball at their disposal. And if they are, they seem to know when the official starts their count.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Science book: Mix two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen to make water.

BM: But, what if you mix one part oxygen with two parts hydrogen? I'm going to post this incessantly on scienceforum.com. Silly science book editor.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jerkins

Science book: Mix two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen to make water.

Circular reasoning alone is considered to be bad science, and, in general, a poor (flawed) way to explain things, anything, even situations not involving science, like basketball definitions.

Example: How do you know the rock layers are old? Because the fossils in them are old. How do you know the fossils are old? Because the rock that contains them are old. (A common challenge to scientists by those who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.)

Once anything else is added to the circular reasoning loop, it begins to make more sense.

Add a little knowledge about how rock layers form and how evolution occurs, and determining the age of rocks and fossils makes more sense.

Add a little knowledge (intent and purpose) about what disposal means in the game of basketball (proximity of the ball to the inbounder, time that the ball is available, etc.), and defining what disposal means makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Raymond

There is no circular reasoning to this.

My point throughout this entire thread is that the rules (alone, as written) regarding disposal are a good example of circular reasoning. Add anything (intent and purpose) to this circular reasoning loop takes us outside the loop and it no longer remains circular reasoning, and thus, is no longer flawed.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... if they have the ability to get to the ball, the ball is at their disposal ... officials I know give teams every opportunity to get the ball before starting a count.

I am not advocating that the NFHS change their definition of disposal. All officials that know anything about the game (intent and purpose) know what disposal means (proximity of the ball to the inbounder, time that the ball is available, etc.) even if it's not spelled out in the definition.

Originally Posted by Raymond

There is no circular reasoning to this.

I was challenged about my statement that the rules themselves, as written, are a great examples of circular reasoning, still stand by my statement, and haven't seen any citations that reverse that statement.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I am not advocating that the NFHS change their definition of disposal. All officials that know anything about the game (intent and purpose) know what disposal means (proximity of the ball to the inbounder, time that the ball is available, etc.) even if it's not spelled out in the definition.

I was challenged about my statement that the rules themselves, as written, are a great examples of circular reasoning, still stand by my statement, and haven't seen any citations that reverse that statement.

OK, just seems like again you are splitting hairs with what is the ultimate discussion. This is a judgment call by the official in question and when they start a count, they have made it clear the ball is at the disposal of the thrower. Not much more to it than that.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... you are splitting hairs

I don't have to split any hairs to prove my statement that the rules, as written, are a perfect examples of circular reasoning. Assuming one knows exactly what circular reasoning is, just read the rules. No judgment is required to prove my statement, but judgment is required to understand what disposal really means in order to properly officiate a basketball game. One can't just learn the rules regarding such in a vacuum, intent and purpose are required.

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

4-4-7-d: A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is: Available to a player after a goal and the official begins the throw-in count.

4-42-3: The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the
disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.

Just read the three statements above, nothing more (pretend you're from another galaxy and don't know anything about the game of basketball), no purpose and intent, and tell me this isn't a pretty good example of circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by Raymond

There is no circular reasoning to this.

[BigCat]

I let them play on in that moment because: player had both feet OB. Possession not required for throw in after made basket and accidents count. He fumbled it because he was in a hurry to avoid pressure. He wasn't just trying to grab it ...had just started my count. Weird play.