The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 14, 2006, 06:58pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Um, no. I claim to have written all of Shakespeare's sonnets. But that's not really relevant to this thread.
Writing notes in the margins to the cute girl sitting next to you doesn't count.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #62 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 14, 2006, 08:16pm
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 Scrapper1
You're going to have to play it back again, so that I understand wtf you are saying. What you've written in that post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
That's simply because I'm trying to make some sense of what you're saying.

Let's leave it at this:

7-6-1 CLEARLY states any player of either team can touch the ball anywhere on a legal throw-in.

9-2-2 CLEARLY says the same thing (the ball shall be passed to a player of either team in bounds or out of bounds...)

9-2-10 EXACTLY contradicts these 2 rules.

They f'ed it up.

You feel obligated to twist yourself into a pretzel to rationalize their f up..."pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

I'm tired of trying to untwist you in your misguided efforts.

They f'ed it up. You insist on sweeping their mess under the rug. Fine. Enjoy yourself.
  #63 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 14, 2006, 08:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
I don't want to leave to get popcorn. Will someone share theirs? I don't want any salt...
  #64 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 14, 2006, 08:54pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I'm tired of trying to untwist you in your misguided efforts.

You insist on sweeping their mess under the rug. Fine. Enjoy yourself.
Lost your temper, didn't ya?



Scappy wins!
  #65 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 15, 2006, 06:32am
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
7-6-1 CLEARLY states any player of either team can touch the ball anywhere on a legal throw-in.
I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think 7-6-1 is saying that it's legal for B1 to catch the throw-in while standing out of bounds. I think it's saying that the inbounder can't throw the ball out of bounds untouched. That's all.

7-6-1 does not say what you think it's saying.
  #66 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 15, 2006, 08:03am
PYRef
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
7-6-1 CLEARLY states any player of either team can touch the ball anywhere on a legal throw-in.
It doesn't say that at all. You are implying that it is legal for a player to touch the ball anywhere IB or OOB during a throw-in

You guys are reading way too much into this.

7.6.1 - Only describes what makes a legal throw-in, it does not address the issue of what to do if a player who touches it is OOB.

9.2.2 - says the same thing.

9.2.10 - Is the only place where we have a violation. The actions of the thrower were legal as described in 7.6.1 and 9.2.2.

The only place anything is described clearly is 9.2.10:
"No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass."

And it tells you specifically what to do about it.
Ball to opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

7.6.1 & 9.2.2 tell you what can happen. 9.2.10 tells you what to do if it does happen, not the other way around.
  #67 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 15, 2006, 08:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
As a professional logician, I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. Suppose the throw-in is first touched by a player OOB. That meets the test of 7.6.1, but fails the test of 9.2.10.

Just because it's not a violation of one rule does not entail that it's not a violation of another. In my example, the throw-in does not violate the rule requiring the throw-in to be touched by a player before going OOB, but it does violate the rule that prohibits the throw-in first being touched OOB.

FWIW, I disagree with PYRef: this is not a modal claim, but rather two distinct violations that happen to have the same penalty.

Can anyone provide an example that both is and is not a violation of one and the same provision of the rules?
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #68 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 15, 2006, 08:55am
PYRef
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
That meets the test of 7.6.1, but fails the test of 9.2.10.
That's what I said. It is not a violation by the thrower under 7.6.1. It is a violation by the toucher OOB under 9.2.10.
Rule 7.6.1 does not make it legal for the player to catch it OOB it only describes the throw-in administration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
Just because it's not a violation of one rule does not entail that it's not a violation of another. In my example, the throw-in does not violate the rule requiring the throw-in to be touched by a player before going OOB, but it does violate the rule that prohibits the throw-in first being touched OOB.
No one said otherwise. What's your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
FWIW, I disagree with PYRef: this is not a model claim, but rather two distinct violations that happen to have the same penalty.
I fail to see two distinct violations. Legal play by the thrower, illegal play by the receiver OOB.

It's not that complicated.

Last edited by PYRef; Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:59am.
  #69 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 15, 2006, 09:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
1. At least one poster maintains that the rules contradict each other. Read the thread before you try to correct me.

2. I did not misspell 'modal'. Look it up.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #70 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 15, 2006, 09:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,186
It was at about this point that the previous thread disintegrated. I think just about all that can be said (at least until FED clears this up, although one side will clain that no cleaning up is needed) has been said.

Disclaimer: Any grammatical or spelling errors in this post have been placed there intentionally to give the various Mr., Mrs. and Ms. AGGs and ASGs something to do.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1