time out after made basket Question

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The ball is "available" if B1 is in position to make a throw-in or reasonably could be expected to be in such a position (and, yes, that requires some judgment).

The ball isn't "available" just because B1 has the ball -- if they are still heading out of bounds, then they can't yet make a throw in, so the ball is (usually) not available. If B1 is dealying, then the ball could well be avaialble -- they had reasonable time to get the ball out of bounds.

Similarly, the ball might be "available" even if B1 hasn't touched the ball -- if the ball is sitting outside the end-line, and B1 is delaying touching the ball, the official might judge that the B1 (or any B player) could reasonably be expected to have retrieved the ball and started the count.

Yeah!!

Yeah!!

What he said!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Yeah!!

Yeah!!

What he said!

As usual, Bob is the voice of reason. (something we could stand to hear more of here sometimes) This is a good explanation, I think, and also serves as a good example of a rule which may sometimes be difficult to translate literally from the printed page to the court.

Bottom line on this is I think sometimes the timeout is granted when it should not be. Conversely, I cannot recall ever seeing an official fail to grant one in this case when it was correct to do so.

[Jimgolf]

I think the bottom line is that the official granted a timeout. Whether he was correct to do so doesn't really matter. Once the timeout has been granted, it's a timeout.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The ball is "available" if B1 is in position to make a throw-in or reasonably could be expected to be in such a position (and, yes, that requires some judgment).

The ball isn't "available" just because B1 has the ball -- if they are still heading out of bounds, then they can't yet make a throw in, so the ball is (usually) not available. If B1 is dealying, then the ball could well be avaialble -- they had reasonable time to get the ball out of bounds.

Similarly, the ball might be "available" even if B1 hasn't touched the ball -- if the ball is sitting outside the end-line, and B1 is delaying touching the ball, the official might judge that the B1 (or any B player) could reasonably be expected to have retrieved the ball and started the count.

Thanks Bob! I would request, however, that you please chime in earlier so we don’t have to go through 6 pages of accusation and insults to get a reasonable interpretation.

[Adam]

Yeah, people might get their feelings hurt or something.

edited to acknowledge that I understand this post is pure smarta$$ and carries no other redeeming value

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, people might get their feelings hurt or something.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Mark, I usually understand your posts, whether I want to or not. But seriously, I don't get what the point to this is, or why you put it in here. Care to explain?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Mark, I usually understand your posts, whether I want to or not. But seriously, I don't get what the point to this is, or why you put it in here. Care to explain?

And I thought I was missing something....

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Mark, I usually understand your posts, whether I want to or not. But seriously, I don't get what the point to this is, or why you put it in here. Care to explain?

It's simple - the delineation and separation of the systems and procedures functions in the transferred components and their proper relocation require further detailed analysis. Also the appropriate locations and certain other specified functions which are currently located in the systems and methods area require further evaluation. These remaining subsidiary issues are under active consideration by the task force and further decisions in these areas will be announced with the issuance of subsequent re-organization memorandum. The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. It will be up to each partnership to agree internally how it can best tackle the difficulties which would be thrown up by a lack of co terminusity. The goal should be for every partner to configure its output in such a way as to maximize effectiveness without promising the individual agencies wider strategic goals.

Does that clear it up?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Does that clear it up?

So what you're saying is we need a new methodology for the extraction of a high-order, linear time invariant model which allows the periodicity of systems response to be accurately captured providing the needed level of dynamic fidelity and to permit an analysis and optimization of the AFCS and HHC algorithms.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

So what you're saying is we need a new methodology for the extraction of a high-order, linear time invariant model which allows the periodicity of systems response to be accurately captured providing the needed level of dynamic fidelity and to permit an analysis and optimization of the AFCS and HHC algorithms.

Thanks for stating the obvious, Dan.

What are you suggesting?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

So what you're saying is we need a new methodology for the extraction of a high-order, linear time invariant model which allows the periodicity of systems response to be accurately captured providing the needed level of dynamic fidelity and to permit an analysis and optimization of the AFCS and HHC algorithms.

Yes, but only if a wheel or disk mounted to spin rapidly about an axis and also free to rotate about one or both of two axes perpendicular to each other and the axis of spin so that a rotation of one of the two mutually perpendicular axes results from application of torque to the other when the wheel is spinning and so that the entire apparatus offers considerable opposition depending on the angular momentum to any torque that would change the direction of the axis of spin.

I thought that was obvious.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Yes, but only if a wheel or disk mounted to spin rapidly about an axis and also free to rotate about one or both of two axes perpendicular to each other and the axis of spin so that a rotation of one of the two mutually perpendicular axes results from application of torque to the other when the wheel is spinning and so that the entire apparatus offers considerable opposition depending on the angular momentum to any torque that would change the direction of the axis of spin.

I thought that was obvious.

Well duh, sure, but not when you consider the recent studies related to the interaction of isolated bacterial flagellum filaments (BFF) and intact flagella from E. coli MS 1350 and B. brevis G.-B.p+ with rabbit skeletal myosin where BFF were shown to coprecipitate with myosin (but not with isolated myosin rod!!) at low ionic strength, that is, under conditions of myosin aggregation.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Thanks for stating the obvious, Dan.

What are you suggesting?

Skip the twinkies.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Skip the twinkies.

Can we throw them at the squirrels? I heard they like that kind of thing.