Quote:
Originally posted by Snaqwells
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Snaqwells
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
What if the ball comes forward but off the side of the hand? IS THAT A BAD PASS OR A FUMBLE?
|
It looks like a bad pass to me. The judgment comes when the player attempts to stop the pass and fails.
You seem to want some sort of cut-and-dried rule for every possible situation. It's just not going to happen.
|
No. Just crisper rules. It can be done.
|
Actually, in this case, you seem to want a more complex rule that would allow you to call a violation on some fumbles while letting others go. It's simpler the way it is.
Regardless, the rule is clear cut now, in that the fumble is allowed. The fumble implies prior control. The fumbles you list don't have that, they are muffs (still defined as fumbles in NFHS.) "Fumble," as defined by NFHS, is too broad to exclude your "bad plays."
Allowing a fumble doesn't reward bad play, it just forces the player to commit a real violation before taking the ball away. To have an illegal dribble, the player must have player control. To have a travel, the player must have player control. A fumble itself can be neither. I really don't know how much more crisp it can be.
There's rules I don't like, too, but I don't alter my game to fit my rules preferences. Even though my change would actually be a simplification, as opposed to yours.
|
No. Jurassic had this right WAY BACK LONG AGO, in the Jurassic era one might say. It is a matter of judgment - on a continuum. If a player unaccountably drops the ball, that looks pretty ACCIDENTAL, as the definition requires. If a player throws a pass BADLY, because his/her technique is that of the unschooled moron, the ball may flip or slip close by. How close does the ball have to fall for it to be an accidental result, as opposed to a lousy pass. And surely many players would be happy to tell you that it was an accident that any manoeuver that went badly was accidental.
If you think that the rules are crisp, don't produce resultants which cannot clearly be resolved from within the rule set, you don't know enough about rules in general. I am not trying to wiggle the rule around. I am pointing out that it has more grey area than many rules, and could be improved.
It would be great to hear from anyone who remembers (or knows) when the concept of 'fumble' came into the game, and what the rational was. Was it among the Naismithian orignal rules?