|
Fri Jun 15, 2001, 04:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
No, I'm not going to get on my soapbox at this time and lobby for eliminating the possession portion of the technical foul penalty. My feelings and reasons for this have been posted numerous times before.
However, what about taking a step toward equity and eliminating using the AP arrow after a double foul? Of course, I'm talking NF rules here. No, I'm not claiming there is a crying need to stop teams from gaining an advantage by fouling in this case. That would assume teams would intentionally engage an opposing player in some kind of physical situation that would probably result in a double foul being called, just so they could get the ball on the AP arrow, if it was pointed their way. That's not my point at all. My point is - since neither team gains an advantage or disadvantage by a double foul call, why should we have the possibility of a change of possession as part of the call? Wouldn't the equitable thing to do be to just give the ball back to the team in team control? It still wouldn't be difficult to determine who gets the ball if the foul occured when there was no team control. If the ball was live, but no control yet (like on an uncompleted inbound), give it to who you gave it to on the inbound. I have heard the double foul theory argued that it is similar to a simultaneous double lane violation on a free throw. In that case, the offense gets "penalized", so it is fair to possibly "penalize" the offense in the case of a double foul (depending on the arrow direction). I don't think the two situations are the same so I don't buy that argument. This year, the NF changed the rule about a defensive team violating or fouling on a throwin, saying that if the offense had the right to run the baseline on the throwin, they wouldn't lose that on a defensive violation or non-shooting foul. Why shouldn't the same theory apply on the double foul? It seems quite capricious to penalize the offense sometimes and not penalize them sometimes depending on something that really has nothing to do with the foul (the AP arrow, of course). What do you guys think? BTW - "guys" is gender-neutral these days, Juulie  [Edited by Mark Padgett on Jun 15th, 2001 at 04:02 PM] 
|
|
Fri Jun 15, 2001, 07:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Works for me, but to keep the change simple the way Fed does with "baby steps", with regard to the loose ball, I think then go to the arrow. mick
|
|
Fri Jun 15, 2001, 08:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Have you been talking secretly to those FEEBLE people FIBA adopted this last rule change Careful you might just become an Ambassador for FEEBLE Malcolm
|
|
Fri Jun 15, 2001, 11:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
It sounds good in theory but remember what happened when the NCAA started giving the ball to the defense on held balls. There was this huge confusion regarding team control and if either team had the ball or team control. There was some confusion among the officials, more confusion among the coaches and players and chaos with TV announcers and fans. The NCAA threw it out after one year. I think those are some of the reasons the rule hasn't been changed.
But it certainly makes sense. It's handled that way in other levels of play. It would just need to be written more clearly than the NF writes most rules.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Sat Jun 16, 2001, 12:33am
|
|||
|
|||
Just to reply to the above 3 posts - first, the only time there would be a "loose ball" where you would not still have a team in team control, or at least have a ball live where it was certain which team was to have the ball (such as the beginning of a throwin) would be during a try or tap. I guess then you would have to go to the AP arrow, but that would be equitable.
Second - as to becoming an ambassador for FEEBLE - them's fightin' words  Third - IMHO, the NCAA had a problem with that rule because the refs weren't trained thoroughly enough. This is the same mentality (I mean on behalf of the NCAA, not the poster) that eliminated the jump ball from NF. The reason given was not that it took too much time, but that refs had trouble tossing. I don't. And if I make a bad toss, my partner blows the whistle. Taking the jump out of the game is the same to me as when they put the DH in baseball and started playing indoors on plastic. YUCK!
|
|
Sat Jun 16, 2001, 09:06am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Wed Jun 27, 2001, 01:22pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you are confusing the rule situation that was originally raised. If I'm reading Mark's original post correctly, what he has mentioned IS CURRENTLY an NCAA rule.
2001 NCAA Basketball Rules Book pg. BR-123 Rule 10 Section 21 "Double Personal Foul - Award to the team in control. During a throw-in, award to team in possession of ball. (In all other cases, use the alternating-possession arrow.)" Mark -- that is what you are proposing for the NFHS correct? If so, I would support that rule change (for many of the reasons you already stated) 100%. The rule that Bktballref brings up is a totally different beast. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but for those who did not realize this was a current NCAA rule, I felt like it was important to distinguish that Mark's original post and the point raised by Bktballref are two completely different issues. Jake
|
|
Wed Jun 27, 2001, 01:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
