|
Wed Apr 03, 2002, 04:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mick, Should officials be able to take part of a rule such as the "Designate throw-in spot" rule and apply it to parts of another rule such as the "throw-in" rule? Under definitions, rule 4-41 makes a distincion between "Throw-in and Designated Spot". Do we take the philosophy of; if the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then assume the player can? Or are we to take the philosophy of just because the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then we will apply parts of a another rule to cover the situation? I'm not trying to be a smart-xxx, I'm attempting to put what you are say in prospective.
__________________
foulbuster 
|
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002, 07:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mick
Go back and reread NFHS situation 1. It is telling you where to take the ball OOB, it has nothing to do with the designated spot. It says that based on where the foul happened that you take it to the endline in cases b & d, in a & c you take it to the sideline. Bart. I like where you are going with philosophy. My philosophy is that unless specifically prohibited by rule then it must be legal. There are very few rules that tell you what a legal play is, most of the rules tell you what an illegal play is. Let's take slapping the backboard. Unless it is intentional and causes the backboard to vibrate (the rule 10 thing) then by deduction all other slaps to the backboard are legal even if they cause an unfair advantage by causing the ball to stay out of the basket. remember when they changed the rule about interlocking players to make it illegal. It was legal until some coaches got creative. so now it is a banned activity. Compression shorts/t-sirts all had unrestricted rules until the fed restricted them. This is where I have seen officials get in the trouble. What do you say when there is a complaint or question that someone says show me where in the book it states you cant do that?
|
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002, 10:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If a distinction was made between an end line throw-in and a designated spot, then I missed it. Do we take the philosophy of; if the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then assume the player can? Or are we to take the philosophy of just because the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then we will apply parts of a another rule to cover the situation? If we are assured the rules makers are omniscient, then we may subscribe to the former. If we question the literal perfection of the rules, then our alternative may be the latter. I'm not trying to be a smart-xxx, I'm attempting to put what you are say in prospective. I know you aren't.  Neither am I.My main problem is that I fail to understand why the requirements of a running throw-in would deviate without explanation, but with regard to spirit and intent, from a designated spot throw-in with regard to requiring a foot over the throw-in spot, when the other variables of running, and passing to a teammate, other teammates out-of-bounds, and change in width are specifically noted. mick
|
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002, 11:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yeah, I read it many times and I see that implication. But, not once have I questioned the "designated spot" and it's prohibitions. I question the variances between Designated spot and the running throw-in. All the differences are noted, but not the presumed variable for the foot over the spot. I do not see where an end line thrower may go back to the wall, but a designated spot thrower does, by rule, have no depth limitation. Since it is specific to one, is it automatically specific to the other? If the depth limitation applies to both, then why does the foot over the throw-in boundary not apply to both? mick
|
|
Thu Apr 04, 2002, 09:06am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
foulbuster
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
