Only two points?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
In your last two posts to this thread you made two comments that I find troubling.

I agree with you that the play we have been discussing in this thread while possible, the probability of it happening is very very small. I have found that complicated theoretical plays is a very good teaching tool, because it requires an official to break the play down into its components. When an official breaksdown the play, he sees how definitions and rules need to be applied and in the order that they need to be applied.

The more troubling comment is that people are going to do whatever they feel like doing. I can tell you from experience that too many basketball officials have that attitude. Who cares what is in the rules and and casebook, lets do whatever will get me tournament votes and more games next year.

I think that you may have mis-read the posts. The point that YOU are missing, Mark, is that, plain and simple, this play is NOT covered in the rules. You can break definitions and rules down for the next 6 months, and that fact won't change. You can voice your opinion on how you would handle it. So can Roger McTavish. But basically, that doesn't mean diddlypoo. If you're gonna use R2-3, then the referee that is there has to make up his mind on the best way that he thinks that it should be handled. If his thinking is different from your's or Roger McTavish's, who's to say who is right or wrong? Certainly not you or McTavish, or me or anyone else for that matter.