BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

How in the world do you go from 1 and 2 to 3?!?!

You are arguing that the simple fact that there is a defensive team MUST mean that the other team has team control. Nevada and JAR simply deny that premise.

Camron is correct; your logic is flawed in this particular case.

Cool. Then you're saying that jar's play is legal also? And if not, why not?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then you're saying that jar's play is legal also?

No. I'm saying your argument against JAR and Nevada_ref is not a good one.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

How in the world do you go from 1 and 2 to 3?!?!

You are arguing that the simple fact that there is a defensive team MUST mean that the other team has team control. Nevada and JAR simply deny that premise.

Camron is correct; your logic is flawed in this particular case.

Yet more semantics, even less worthy as a male body fluid than Meisterbrau after a hard day of commercial fishing.

I'm beyond caring what jar & nevada have to say about this...in your view of the world who is on defense when no team has control?

I'm kinda hoping you'll say neither.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yet more semantics,

It's not semantics. It's deduction. I consider it to be critically important, even if you don't recognize it.

in your view of the world who is on defense when no team has control?

As I said earlier in this thread, I honestly don't know if the NFHS has a considered answer to this question or not. In a real world sense, however, it seems pretty obvious to me that the team with the ball for the throw-in is on offense.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It's not semantics. It's deduction. I consider it to be critically important, even if you don't recognize it.

Nope, we're arguing the meaning of the word defense.

As some people much smarter than I (but not you maybe) have already noted semantics is the study of meaning.

As I said earlier in this thread, I honestly don't know if the NFHS has a considered answer to this question or not. In a real world sense, however, it seems pretty obvious to me that the team with the ball for the throw-in is on offense.

Obvious from fan's perspective.

How about from a rules perspective?

(What I mean to say is how do you view offense & defense from the perspective of a rules expert? Don't give me the common man's view, I can call my 77 year old aunt and get that. I want your view as a rules expert.)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As soon as B1 blocked the ball, the shot ended, and as well player and team control by team A also ended at the same time. During the rebound, the ball is not in player or team control of either team. If you think differently, read case book play 4.12.2. Iow, until someone re-establishes player and team control, there is NO offense or defense. Because the exemptions that apply in rule 9-9-23 are only for defensive players, throw-ins and jump balls, they are NOT applicable in the case described above. That's why it's a violation.

You're basing your premises on there being defensive players when neither team has player or team control. Cool! Why can't both teams all be defensive then? That's just as logical as what you're trying to say.

If you or any of your confreres can cite some rules why that isn't a violation, please feel free to do so. Rules....not something written on a tablet and brought down from the mount by Nevadaref.

Since you want to cite rules, your first sentence is WRONG!
You know better too. Team and player control don't end "as soon as B1 blocked the ball," instead they both end when the ball is in flight after being released by A1 on the try. That's what it says in 4-12-3(a).

Now as for the real debate, yes, I am basing my argument on it being possible, but not necessary, for there to be defensive players when neither team has team control. You are basing yours on the belief that there cannot be defensive players unless one team has team control. We disagree.

BTW you still haven't answered my question about whether you consider B1, the shotblocker, a defensive player after A1 releases the try for goal.
There is no team control at this time, but he certainly looks like he's playing defense to me.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No. I'm saying your argument against JAR and Nevada_ref is not a good one.

Sooooo...........you're saying my argument is wrong, but the way that jar, Camron and Junior want to call the play is also wrong under current NFHS rules. Correct, weaselboy?

Or are you saying that you agree that there is no violation in the play that jar outlined?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Nope, we're arguing the meaning of the word defense.

And my only point in the post you quoted was that Jurassic was arguing badly. I was not discussing offense or defense or semantics. I get it, I understand the discussion. I was making a different point.

How about from a rules perspective?

As I've already said twice, I honestly don't know what the NFHS rulemakers intend in this regard. I think Bktballref's view is probably correct, but I think there are legitimate points on both sides.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As soon as B1 blocked the ball, the shot ended, and as well player and team control by team A also ended at the same time. During the rebound, the ball is not in player or team control of either team. If you think differently, read case book play 4.12.2. Iow, until someone re-establishes player and team control, there is NO offense or defense.

...

You're basing your premises on there being defensive players when neither team has player or team control. Cool! Why can't both teams all be defensive then? That's just as logical as what you're trying to say.

If you or any of your confreres can cite some rules why that isn't a violation, please feel free to do so. Rules....not something written on a tablet and brought down from the mount by Nevadaref.

You want citations, here are citations:

Rules Fundamental #7: The only infractions for which points are awarded are goaltending by the defense...

Explain me that! How can the defense commit goaltending at all if there is no defense after the shot is released????


Rule 4-23...Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Are you saying you can't "guard" the team with the ball during a throwin? Are you saying that since you can't guard, you can't have LGP, and therefore the non-throwing team simply can't ever have a postion which would allow them to draw a charging foul (not a PC, just a common charging foul) against the throwing team? Are you saying that the team without the ball must continue to get out of the throwing team's way until someone catches the ball?

Rule 8-4-a During a free throw....Marked lane spaces may be occupied by a maximum of four defensive and two offensive players.

After the FT is released, is it still during a FT? If so, those players are still offensive and defensive players. Or are you saying they must magically evaporate from the lane between the release and when the FT ends since only 4 defensive and 2 offensive players are allowed to be there?

Even if it is not explicity spelled out in the book, these three citations demonstrate that a team can be considered to be on defense even when the other team doesn't have team control.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

you're saying my argument is wrong, but the way that jar, Camron and Junior want to call the play is also wrong under current NFHS rules. Correct, weaselboy?

No, not correct. Holy crap, how can such a simple point be so misunderstood?!?!?! All I was saying was that these two sentences:

1. Team A is on offense.
2. Team B is on defense.

do not entail the following sentence:

3. If team A commits a foul while they are on offense and team B is on defense, that foul had better be an PC or TC foul.

That's it! You seemed to say that if you believe #1 and #2 (which JAR does) then you HAVE to accept #3, and that's simply false. That was my point.

Or are you saying that you agree that there is no violation in the play that jar outlined?

I'm not talking AT ALL about the play JAR outlined. I didn't even read the play that JAR outlined. I'm talking solely about the deduction involved in sentences 1-3.

Good night. I'm done with this thread. It's not worth the freakin' headache.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since you want to cite rules, your first sentence is WRONG!
You know better too. Team and player control don't end "as soon as B1 blocked the ball," instead they both end when the ball is in flight after being released by A1 on the try. That's what it says in 4-12-3(a).

Now as for the real debate, yes, I am basing my argument on it being possible, but not necessary, for there to be defensive players when neither team has team control. You are basing yours on the belief that there cannot be defensive players unless one team has team control. We disagree.

BTW you still haven't answered my question about whether you consider B1, the shotblocker, a defensive player after A1 releases the try for goal.
There is no team control at this time, but he certainly looks like he's playing defense to me.

OK. Now what difference does that make anyway re: the final call? It really don't make no nevermind when player and team control ended. The only fact needed to make the final call that is relevant is that player and team control did end.

Cite some rules to back up your argument that a violation does not occur on the play you posted.

If there is no player or team control, there are NO defenders until someone re-establishes player and team control. Is that statement plain enough for you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

After a long and thoughtful consideration, I have decided that since there is no published definition of what a "defensive player" is, each of us must make up his/her own mind and proceed accordingly. Forget team control for a minute.
On a throw-in, team A has the ball, therefore they are offense. So, conversely, team B must be defense. The way I see it, they will continue to be defense on this play until they gain control of the ball or until a shot goes up. Therefore, if B2 leaps from FC, grabs the ball and lands in BC, I believe I will continue to consider this a legal play until a casebook play comes out which states something different.

To my dearly beloved friend, Scrappy......

After you return from wherever you go when you're pouting, would you please answer the following question?

If a throw-in by A1 is tipped by a player(defensive, offensive--I really don't care what you call them), and a B player then gains possession of the tipped ball while in mid-air after jumping from his frontcourt, is it a violation for that B player to land in the back court holding the ball? Iow, do you agree or disagree that the above play of jar's is not a backcourt violation?

That's all I want to know.

Camron, Junior....please put on the record also whether you think that this is a violation or not.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No, not correct. Holy crap, how can such a simple point be so misunderstood?!?!?! All I was saying was that these two sentences:

1. Team A is on offense.
2. Team B is on defense.

do not entail the following sentence:

3. If team A commits a foul while they are on offense and team B is on defense, that foul had better be an PC or TC foul.

It does if you accept the meaning of offense as the team in conrol of the ball and defense as the other team (we can agree there are only 2 teams, correct? I mean...in you opinion as an expert.)

See...it's all about meaning. That's as clear as Meisterbrau or Pabst.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rules Fundamental #7: The only infractions for which points are awarded are goaltending by the defense...

Explain me that! How can the defense commit goaltending at all if there is no defense after the shot is released????

All right Camron! I busted my butt looking for something, ANYTHING, no matter how obscure which made this point. This is undeniable proof that the bookwriters do at some point consider defense to still be defense when there is no team control by the opponent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

To my dearly beloved friend, Scrappy......

After you return from wherever you go when you're pouting, would you please answer the following question?

If a throw-in by A1 is tipped by a player(defensive, offensive--I really don't care what you call them), and a B player then gains possession of the tipped ball while in mid-air after jumping from his frontcourt, is it a violation for that B player to land in the back court holding the ball? Iow, do you agree or disagree that the above play of jar's is not a backcourt violation?

That's all I want to know.

Camron, Junior....please put on the record also whether you think that this is a violation or not.

No violation. Team B is not responsible for the location of the ball if it is from A's throwin. Until team B gains possession, they remain on defense and have the expception at their favor.

To further illustrate that point...Ball inbounds in A1's hands. B1 deflects A1's pass to A2. B2 catches the ball in the air having jumped from the frontcourt and lands in the backcourt. Violation. No. Reason: B remains on defense until they have possession of the ball either through a steal/turnover/violation/foul by A.

A greater responsibility is placed on team A since they're controlling where the ball is thrown. Team B can only react to where team A throws the ball and should not be put in jeopardy of a violation in order to gain possession of the ball. That intent was made clear when the exceptions were first instituted.