The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 09, 2005, 12:29am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
True or false: Holding or moving a hand or hands in front of the face of a player who has the ball, by an opponent who is in a legal guarding position, constitutes unsporting tactics and is illegal.

I kinda get a conflict from rulebook and casebook on this.
10.3.7 says yes it is, but 10-3-7 specifically mentions purposely obstructing vision by placing hand(s) near the eyes.

I said false, my partner said true. I hereby use a lifeline and poll the audience.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 09, 2005, 03:27am
Never Stop Learning
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 518
I've got to go with true. Almost word for word from the case book. One says face and the other says eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 09, 2005, 06:19am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
From the 2004-05 Rulebook when they expanded the "face guarding" rule:

POE 4A- FACE GUARDING- "Face guarding is defined in rule 10-3-7d as purposely obstructing an opponent's vision by waving or placing hands(s) near his or her eyes......The committee does not intend for good defense to be penalized. Challenging a shooter with a 'hand in the face' or fronting a post player with a hand in the air are examples of acceptable actions."
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 09, 2005, 08:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,001
Quote:
Originally posted by just another ref
True or false: Holding or moving a hand or hands in front of the face of a player who has the ball, by an opponent who is in a legal guarding position, constitutes unsporting tactics and is illegal.

I kinda get a conflict from rulebook and casebook on this.
10.3.7 says yes it is, but 10-3-7 specifically mentions purposely obstructing vision by placing hand(s) near the eyes.

I said false, my partner said true. I hereby use a lifeline and poll the audience.
Isn't this one of the FED PArt 1 questions? I think the question is testing to see whether the respondent remembers the rule change from last year -- it's now a T to "face guard" the player who has the ball, not just the player without the ball.

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 09, 2005, 10:34am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by just another ref
True or false: Holding or moving a hand or hands in front of the face of a player who has the ball, by an opponent who is in a legal guarding position, constitutes unsporting tactics and is illegal.

I kinda get a conflict from rulebook and casebook on this.
10.3.7 says yes it is, but 10-3-7 specifically mentions purposely obstructing vision by placing hand(s) near the eyes.

I said false, my partner said true. I hereby use a lifeline and poll the audience.
Isn't this one of the FED PArt 1 questions? I think the question is testing to see whether the respondent remembers the rule change from last year -- it's now a T to "face guard" the player who has the ball, not just the player without the ball.

Not quite....

FED Pt.1--#72 is "Is it a technical foul for a player to purposely obstruct the vision of an opponent with the ball"

Your reasoning certainly is right for that question. Different concept in t'other question though methinks.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2005, 12:48am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Uncertainty here as well. My partner and I had 10 questions that we answered differently. When I went to the books to check I thought he had 6 of these right and I had 4. Our scores came back saying we missed the same number and this is the only question that I had any doubt about when I rechecked. So apparently either this question was false or somebody (one of us or whoever scored the test) made a mistake somewhere.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2005, 08:24am
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,024
Looks like #72 might be what you're talking about. 10-3-7d ... F
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1