Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, I like the Yoda link so much that I started playing around with it and it occurred to me to put in a few of the questions from last year's NFHS Part 1 exam and see what they would be like in Yoda-speak, since they don't seem to make much sense in English anyway.

English:

The net shall be constructed so it will momentarily check the ball as it passes through.
Yoda-speak:
The net shall be constructed so, momentarily check the ball as it passes through, will it.

English:

When play is resumed by a throw-in after a double foul occurs, it takes place at the spot closest to the fouls.

Yoda-speak:
When resumed by a throw-in after a double foul occurs, play is, to the fouls it takes place at the spot closest.

English:

The ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor when the defense commits an excessively swinging elbow violation.
Yoda-speak:
The ball becomes dead until the try or tap ends not, or to the floor until the airborne shooter returns when the defense commits an excessively swinging elbow violation.


:D

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It didn't make much sense either.

Are spending too much time reading Rut's posts? :D

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

True. But the more likely BI case (and the one that the change was really intended to address) is after the ball hits the rim, rolls around the rim, and is maybe coming out but is still on the rim when A3 goes up and dunks it or B3 grabs it off the rim.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

What you say seems reasonable, Bob. But the reason for the rule change was not the play you mention in (a). The reason for the rule change was to penalize blocking the FT on the way up, immediately out of the shooter's hand.

Picture this very familiar scenario. Team A is down by 2 points and A1 is awarded 2 FTs in the closing seconds of the 4th quarter. A1 misses the first FT. We all know what's going to happen next, right? A1 is going to miss the FT intentionally and attempt to get the rebound for a put-back to tie the game.

What's the best defense against this possibility? Block the FT as soon as it is out of the shooter's hand. Before the rule change, it was simply 1 point and the ball was awarded to Team B. But this clearly is an unfair use of the rule. So to prevent teams from doing that in the closing seconds, the rule committee added the extra penalty of the T. This way, Team A still has a chance to tie or win the game. (The reason it's not a T for BI is that it's possible to commit BI while genuinely trying for the rebound; that is, while making a "basketball play". GT during a FT can never be considered a "basketball play".)

So, as unlikely as it seems, I think it's a good rule. To treat your examples (a) and (b) the same way makes sense, as I said. But to implement it, you'd need to penalize some forms of GT differently from other forms.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Chuck, you got the rule change I'm talking about backwards. Before the change it was a T for either BI or GT on a FT. The change reduced the infraction for BI to a violation only. Perhaps their was some earlier change that made them both a T but that was much longer ago.