The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   player control/team control (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/27893-player-control-team-control.html)

Dan_ref Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I realize that team control can exist during a PC foul and that the penalty is the same. But it is not a TC foul by definition. Get them to change the working of the articles/rule and I there. Until then, no.

Well no, that's what you don't understand, apparently.

They are *exactly* the same by the wording of the definition, minus the exception. And the exception (airborne shooter) is consistent with the given definition without explanation. If the PC is by an airborne shooter then by definition under the fed it is not a TC - no team ctl. If the PC is by the player in control of the ball then by definition we have a TC - team ctl. By definition that's all that matters, did the fouling team have ctl of the ball. If the fed decided to remove the airborne shooter exception (make it the same as those rules you don't care about) then the definition of TC would remain exactly as is. It's all in there, it's all consistent, you just don't want to see it.

No biggie.

Jimgolf Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:11pm

In English, a player is part of a team.

In basketball, team control foul and player control foul are seperate concepts. While most player control fouls occur while the team has control, they are not team control fouls.

An analogy is the team rebound statistic. While all rebounds are by members of a team, not all rebounds are team rebounds.

I suspect the term was defined to distinguish between types of fouls, not as an umbrella definition. JMO.

Jurassic Referee Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:31pm

If you took away the NFHS airborne shooter exception, there would be no need to have the term "player control foul" in the rule book. The term "team control foul" would cover all situations nicely.

Dan_ref Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
If you took away the NFHS airborne shooter exception, there would be no need to have the term "player control foul" in the rule book. The term "team control foul" would cover all situations nicely.

Actually if you changed the wording of 4-19-7 to add the words "or by an airborne shooter" you could eliminate 4-19-6 completely, along with any references.

Raymond Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:51pm

This thread got so long and convoluted I forgot what the argument was.

Can the OP please start a poll.

Is PC by definition a Team Control foul:

-- Yes :confused:

-- No ;)

-- IDGAF, I just like to see Dan bicker with Tony and Juulie :D

Dan_ref Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Just so you're in the loop....

<i>Chuckie had a little team
It's socks were a nice bright red
Now our poor Chuckie has just found out
That his little team is dead</i>

A Haiku for Chuck

Big games this weekend
We'll beat those hated Yankees!
Not enough rain, sigh

And a limerick!

There once was a Sox fan named Chuck
Who's team was in for some luck
They put down their bet
"All 5 games of the set!"
And all they have left is "You suck"

Dan_ref Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
-- IDGAF, I just like to see Dan bicker with Tony and Juulie :D

Actually this damn thread is taking time from what I like to do - come here & pester Chuck.

ChuckElias Tue Aug 22, 2006 01:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
A Haiku for Chuck

And a limerick!

You're in the wrong thread, wiseguy!

Dan_ref Tue Aug 22, 2006 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckElias
You're in the wrong thread, wiseguy!

I got a promotion from [email protected]!

:D

Jurassic Referee Tue Aug 22, 2006 02:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Actually if you changed the wording of 4-19-7 to add the words "or by an airborne shooter" you could eliminate 4-19-6 completely, along with any references.

You'll never make the FED rules committee. Your thinking is too logical.

BktBallRef Tue Aug 22, 2006 05:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Well no, that's what you don't understand, apparently.

They are *exactly* the same by the wording of the definition, minus the exception. And the exception (airborne shooter) is consistent with the given definition without explanation. If the PC is by an airborne shooter then by definition under the fed it is not a TC - no team ctl. If the PC is by the player in control of the ball then by definition we have a TC - team ctl. By definition that's all that matters, did the fouling team have ctl of the ball. If the fed decided to remove the airborne shooter exception (make it the same as those rules you don't care about) then the definition of TC would remain exactly as is. It's all in there, it's all consistent, you just don't want to see it.

No biggie.

So we're all blind except you? Gees, that sounds like something...well never mind. Faced with the rule, unable to provide an interp or case play. Is your last name Rutledge? :cool:

No my hardheaded friend, you're the one who refuses to see it. You want to ignore the exception. You want to offer things like "if the fed....." Well, you can't ignore the exception and the Fed hasn't changed anything. It is what it is. If and when they do, people like myself, Jim, Juulie, and others will agree with you. Until then, you're wrong and you'll continue to be wrong.

I'm done.

JRutledge Tue Aug 22, 2006 05:56pm

Keep Up The Good Work Tony!!!!
 
Another display of the Tony thinks his point of view is the only one that matters. Then acts like a little ***** and walks away from the comments when you do not agree with him after he throws out a couple of personal shots. Another great display classless behavior from a guy that needs the internet to show his ability as an official rather than prove it on the court or field.

BTW, this is not the NF board, you cannot do anything to me here. :D

Peace

Jurassic Referee Tue Aug 22, 2006 06:00pm

http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/popcorn.gif

Dan_ref Tue Aug 22, 2006 06:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef
So we're all blind except you? Gees, that sounds like something...well never mind. Faced with the rule, unable to provide an interp or case play. Is your last name Rutledge? :cool:

No my hardheaded friend, you're the one who refuses to see it. You want to ignore the exception. You want to offer things like "if the fed....." Well, you can't ignore the exception and the Fed hasn't changed anything. It is what it is. If and when they do, people like myself, Jim, Juulie, and others will agree with you. Until then, you're wrong and you'll continue to be wrong.

I'm done.

If that's the best ya got Tony I can see why you're done.

:boring:

BktBallRef Tue Aug 22, 2006 06:22pm

LOL! "IF that's the best you got..." That's weak sparky!

What did old Rut boy have to say up there? I've got him on IGNORE. :D

Later DRut! ;) (Hey, DRut is turd spelled backwards!)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1