held ball

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by mick

What is the other interpretation of the word "or" ?

I inferred from Woody's posts that he was interpreting "or" to mean both conditions must exist.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I inferred from Woody's posts that he was interpreting "or" to mean both conditions must exist.

That would then be a misinterpretation of the meaning of "or"

[Adam]

Originally posted by mick

What is the other interpretation of the word "or" ?

I think that depends upon the meaning of the word "is."

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jayzer
I take it that was a slam for being so stuuned.
Sorry for trying an imput.
Will try to do better.

Jay, my point is that the case play you cited is what we're discussing. We know it exists. We're debating how it applies. To just cite the play is about 2 days late at this point.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I inferred from Woody's posts that he was interpreting "or" to mean both conditions must exist.

That's how Woody was interpreting it. Held ball if the defender can stop the opponent from doing both.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Smitty

Formally, you are correct, but for efficiency's sake, any process put in place to analyze an OR situation would only look for one of the various options. In other words, as soon as you see the red coat, there's no need to look for green boots. He's in.

I'm a software engineer....I can't help myself. The geek in me just comes out.

Actually what Juulie is describing is an *exclusive* or: A or B is true but not both A & B are true.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

Actually what Juulie is describing is an *exclusive* or: A or B is true but not both A & B are true.

[/B][/QUOTE]And you can take that to the bank too, folks, because Dan is the veritable epitome of stuunitity.

And he's warm too, which also pisses me off no end. Yeah, every now and then, just sitting here at the 'puter, I burst into a rousing rendition of Do you know the way to San Jose?".

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Actually what Juulie is describing is an *exclusive* or: A or B is true but not both A & B are true.

No, I'm not. Chuck got it right, it COULD be both, but it doesn't HAVE to be. The defender COULD prevent both the shot and the pass, but he doens't have to prevent both. If he prevents only one of the two, it's still a held ball.

And btw, what's Dan doing in San Jose?!?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

1) Chuck got it right, it COULD be both, but it doesn't HAVE to be. The defender COULD prevent both the shot and the pass, but he doens't have to prevent both. If he prevents only one of the two, it's still a held ball.

2)And btw, what's Dan doing in San Jose?!?
[/B][/QUOTE]1) Nope, I'm saying Chuck got it wrong, just for the record. The defender has to prevent both to have a held ball. If the player with the ball can shoot or pass, then the defender hasn't prevented everything.

2) Sunbathing and laughing his a$$ off at all us goobers that are freezing our a$$es off.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Chuck got it right, it COULD be both, but it doesn't HAVE to be. The defender COULD prevent both the shot and the pass, but he doens't have to prevent both. If he prevents only one of the two, it's still a held ball.

2)And btw, what's Dan doing in San Jose?!?
[/B]

1) Nope, I'm saying Chuck got it wrong, just for the record. The defender has to prevent both to have a held ball. If the player with the ball can shoot or pass, then the defender hasn't prevented everything.

2) Sunbathing and laughing his a$$ off at all us goobers that are freezing our a$$es off. [/B][/QUOTE]

1)How do you figure? OR has a meaning out there in the world. It means "only one is necessary". I know the rule book doesn't always follow the rules, but it sounds like you're saying the rule book meaning is the opposite of what the regular meaning is. So how do you arrive at that conclusion?

2) 68 and sunny here in Portland today. I don't feel the least bit sorry for MYself!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

1) Nope, I'm saying Chuck got it wrong, just for the record. The defender has to prevent both to have a held ball. If the player with the ball can shoot or pass, then the defender hasn't prevented everything.

[/B]

1)How do you figure? OR has a meaning out there in the world. It means "only one is necessary". I know the rule book doesn't always follow the rules, but it sounds like you're saying the rule book meaning is the opposite of what the regular meaning is. So how do you arrive at that conclusion?

[/B][/QUOTE]Nope, I'm saying that I'm not the brightest official around. When the player with the ball went airborne, I'm usually not 100% sure whether his original intention was to shoot the ball or pass the ball. If he isn't prevented from doing both, how do I know for sure that the act that he ended up doing was the same act that he intended to do when he went airborne? That's why I try to hold the whistle on these plays.

Your turn now. Is that brilliant logic or a wussy cop-out?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

1)How do you figure? OR has a meaning out there in the world. It means "only one is necessary". I know the rule book doesn't always follow the rules, but it sounds like you're saying the rule book meaning is the opposite of what the regular meaning is. So how do you arrive at that conclusion?

[/B]

Nope, I'm saying that I'm not the brightest official around. When the player with the ball went airborne, I'm usually not 100% sure whether his original intention was to shoot the ball or pass the ball. If he isn't prevented from doing both, how do I know for sure that the act that he ended up doing was the same act that he intended to do when he went airborne? That's why I try to hold the whistle on these plays.

Your turn now. Is that brilliant logic or a wussy cop-out? [/B][/QUOTE]

Wussy cop-out. What difference does it make what he intended? We're not supposed to read minds. If he was trying to release the ball, and the defender got a hand on and prevented it, it's a held ball at that instant, regardless of what happened next. That is clearly the spirit of the rule.

And you haven't explained why you interpret "or" to mean "and" against all the rules of logic, language and common sense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

1) What difference does it make what he intended? We're not supposed to read minds. If he was trying to release the ball, and the defender got a hand on and prevented it, it's a held ball at that instant, regardless of what happened next. That is clearly the spirit of the rule.

2) And you haven't explained why you interpret "or" to mean "and" against all the rules of logic, language and common sense. [/B][/QUOTE]1)Yup, problem is though that the defender didn't prevent the player from releasing the ball. The player did release the ball. On a pass. If you're not supposed to read minds, then how do you completely, positively, 110%(that one's for Chuck) surely know that the player didn't want to pass in the first place? Personally, not being all-knowing, I am never that totally positive. Any doubt at all,.....

2) I interpret "or" to mean that the player was prevented from doing both acts. Iow, he couldn't shoot or pass. Of course, I have to admit that I am not the cunning linguist that Chuck is.

I personally think that the spirit and intent of this particular section of the rule is to reward a defender for stopping an airborne player from making any kind of a controlled basketball play. If the airborne player can still play through a defender touching the ball and get a pass off before coming down, then I don't think that the defender ever had firm enough control of the ball to warrant a held ball. Jmo.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

No, I'm not.

Well yes, you are:


"If you have a red coat, or green boots, you may enter the building" means that both people with red coat but no green boots, and people with no red coat but green boots will be in there.

You've excluded people with red coats and green boots from your party - A (red coats) or B (green coats) is true but both A and B is not true.

And btw, what's Dan doing in San Jose?!?

Staying warm.

But now I'm back here in Siberia with a free weekend thanks to the snow which we're all promised.

BTW, what JR is saying (I think) is formally called NOT A or B. IOO, if neither a pass or a shot occurs we have a held ball. Which is quite different form what (I think) you are saying, which is a held ball occurs if either a pass is prevented or a shot is prevented.

In practice I am happier with myself if I do not call a held ball when a defender's hand is on the ball but a pass is made (NOT A or B)



[Edited by Dan_ref on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 12:33 PM]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Nope, I'm saying that I'm not the brightest official around. When the player with the ball went airborne, I'm usually not 100% sure whether his original intention was to shoot the ball or pass the ball. If he isn't prevented from doing both, how do I know for sure that the act that he ended up doing was the same act that he intended to do when he went airborne? That's why I try to hold the whistle on these plays.

Me too. Neither a pass or a shot was prevented, play on.