2005-6 Rule Changes!!!

[26 Year Gap]

Guess Tony won't call me a plumber anymore if I blow a whistle on one of those leaving the court plays.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by JosephG678
9-3-2 New, 10-3-3:
Changed the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to a violation from a technical foul.

Ok, but what if the defense does this???

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by tjones1

Ok, but what if the defense does this???

I am sure that the casebook will have some plays to justify this call. I do not think they spirit of the rule will apply to every possible situation. The NCAA that used this rule last year for the first time used a very specific situation that this would be used as their example. Some would like to say that it applied to more situations than what was widely discussed. I know it will be one of the first questions I ask of the rules interpreter at the rules meetings in the fall.

Peace

[tjones1]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I know it will be one of the first questions I ask of the rules interpreter at the rules meetings in the fall.

Peace

Dittos! I was hoping to hear your insight again JRut, as I recall us having this discussion not to long ago.

[JRutledge]

In the college meetings I attended, we were told to not call a violation for just a simple touching the boundary line or issues of momentum. We were told to basically consider this just at the NF used it for a Technical foul this past year. So if a player avoided a screen, or just went out of bounds to become undetected then it would be a violation. If you have a loose ball and a player simply touched the out of bounds line and then reestablished themselves in bounds and was the first to touch the ball, that was not how the rule was not suppose to be applied in our discussions in my conferences. Some have disagreed with that, but I never saw any discussions that suggested that was the proper application of the rule. Maybe the NF will clarify in more detail. The NCAA sure did not do that.

Peace

[refnrev]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

The addition of Rule 4-19-7 and revision of Rule 7-5-5 establishes the definition of a team-control foul and now makes the penalty consistent with a player-control foul.
__________________________________________________ _______
I like the changes. They look good, but help me out here. Am I missing the definition of a team control foul?

[JRutledge]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by refnrev

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

I like the changes. They look good, but help me out here. Am I missing the definition of a team control foul?

This is an adoption of the NCAA rule. Any foul committed by the team in control and the team that has the throw-in, the foul will be considered a team control foul. Which basically means all fouls by the team in control will not have FTs shoot if the team is in the bonus. I am sure they will take the exact same language and transfer it over to the NF code.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JosephG678
7-5-5, 4-19-7 New:
Changed the penalty to a throw-in for a team-control foul in all cases. A new definition for a team-control foul was also added.

Finally! I've been hoping for this one for years! Any idea how they'll handle fouls by the offense during a throw-in?

7-5-9, 6-4-3g, 4-36 New:
Changed the penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition for “point of interruption” was also added.

Ok, but I'd also like to see the POI adopted for a single T.

[refnrev]

So is the point of team control to speed up the game?

[Edited by refnrev on Apr 28th, 2005 at 10:35 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
7-5-9, 6-4-3g, 4-36 New:
Changed the penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition for “point of interruption” was also added.

Ok, but I'd also like to see the POI adopted for a single T. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not me. There's no reason to lessen the penalty for a technical foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by refnrev
So is the point of team control to speed up the game?

Yes and to make the rules consistent across the board. If you read the article put out by the NF, this helps to make it easier so an official does not have to decide if a foul was a player control foul or just a common foul. Now we do not have to make sure we have the shooter after an illegal screen foul is called.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
There's no reason to lessen the penalty for a technical foul.

One reason is that you might just see more of them called.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

BITS, Joseph already posted the article in a separate thread.

Whoops! Missed that one.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by tjones1

Ok, but what if the defense does this???

I never seen a defender do it but have seen the offense do it several times.

If there is a screen where the best path to get around is OOB, that suggest that the player they're trying to keep up with also went OOB. Otherwise, we're likely to have a block on the screener. If the player they're guarding when on the inbounds side of the screen, then going OOB is probably a disadvantage.


BTW, I think ALL of these are good changes. No senseless tinkering.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

I never seen a defender do it but have seen the offense do it several times.

If there is a screen where the best path to get around is OOB, that suggest that the player they're trying to keep up with also went OOB. Otherwise, we're likely to have a block on the screener. If the player they're guarding when on the inbounds side of the screen, then going OOB is probably a disadvantage.


BTW, I think ALL of these are good changes. No senseless tinkering.

I will agree with you there that 99% of the time the offense is the one going to be doing it. But as I've said before, I hope they clairfy with a case book sitution or explain in detail at the rules interp.