Quote:
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
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" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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 |
|
Quote:
:boring: |
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 11:11am. |