Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by tjones1
Situation 10:
If this happens during a throw-in for Team A. I'm taking it you blow it dead and give Team A a new 5 second count??
|
Nope, it's a different rule for a throw-in. Rule 9-2-11--which hasn't changed..It's an official warning followed by a T for a re-occurance.
|
Do you really think that's the intent of the change?
IMO, the "warning, then T" rule is (primarily) for the person guarding the inbounder.
If it's another defensive player chasing a member of Team A other than the inbounder, I think the violation rule applies.
|
I really dunno to be quite honest. I certainly can see your point and it's a good 'un.
R9-2-11 is very specifically written up in the plural--i.e. "opponent(s)". I read that as covering
all defensive players that go OOB during a throw-in, not just
a defender contesting a throw-in. Iow,
any defender going OOB during a throw-in leads to the team warning procedure instead of an immediate violation.
As for the intent of the new rule, according to the "COMMENTS ON THE RULES REVISIONS" on p.72, it looks like the FED wants to stop players from leaving the court for an unauthorized reason
during the course of play. The question seems to be.....does the "course of play" include
all live ball situations or just live ball/clock running situations? If the FED had meant it to include all live ball situations, I think that they would have re-written 9-2-11 to reflect that. That's jmo though.
Thoughts?
Fri Oct 14, 2005, 03:56pm
Threaded Mode
