The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 10:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
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.
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 12:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 944
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.
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 12:31pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
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.
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 12:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
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.
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 12:51pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,101
Red face

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

-- No

-- IDGAF, I just like to see Dan bicker with Tony and Juulie
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 12:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Just so you're in the loop....

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
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"

Last edited by Dan_ref; Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 01:27pm.
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 12:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
-- IDGAF, I just like to see Dan bicker with Tony and Juulie
Actually this damn thread is taking time from what I like to do - come here & pester Chuck.
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 01:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,104
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
A Haiku for Chuck

And a limerick!
You're in the wrong thread, wiseguy!
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 01:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
You're in the wrong thread, wiseguy!
I got a promotion from [email protected]!

  #40 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 02:38pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
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.
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 05:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
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?

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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 05:56pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,834
Thumbs up 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.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 06:00pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 06:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
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?

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:
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 22, 2006, 06:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
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.

Later DRut! (Hey, DRut is turd spelled backwards!)
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Closed Thread

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
player/team control thumpferee Basketball 19 Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:21pm
Player control vs Team control foul QuebecRef87 Basketball 6 Wed Jan 26, 2005 07:42am
Player COntrol vs. Team Control tjksail Basketball 32 Mon Jan 10, 2005 02:38pm
team/player control @ backcourt MN 3 Sport Ref Basketball 16 Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:56pm
Team & Player control F C E Basketball 4 Sun Nov 10, 2002 01:01am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1