New violation: unintended advantage?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Now c'mon, BITS. No, you're not. Do you really think the intent of this rule is to allow the defense to force a violation by running OOB while A1 is on a fast break?

That was your initial post that started this thread. Now surely you realize that this is not the intent of the rule. Therefore, the statement above is completely false, is't it?

Camron has already told you what you needed to know. "The violation is to prevent a team from gaining an advantage by going OOB."

No, Tony, I don't think that is the intent of the rule, and I have no intention of making that call. However the actual wording of the rule seems to support it, maybe even require it.

Dan is right, I am overthinking it. I can't help myself. This was an obscure little backwater rule buried at the end of the book for years until the committee shined their spotlight on it recently. The more I think about it, the more questions I have, none of which are answered by the rulebook. That's why I keep tacking new questions onto this thread.

I'm a bear of very little brain. I need to think through things before they happen on the court if I'm going to make the right call, doubly so if I'm going to have to explain the call (or no-call) to a coach.


[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Aug 7th, 2005 at 02:34 AM]