The Official Forum  

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 06, 2008, 01:27am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,579
I can list

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Both the FED and NCAA rulesmakers are telling us that particular call has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage, rough play or RBSQ. If we see 2 hands on a ballhandler, we are simply supposed to call a foul.



Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I agree with the dinosaur. The NFHS is stating very clearly that two hands on = an advantage by definition, no judgment is necessary = a foul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truerookie
Yes, I read the comments. I was making a statement not directly at anyone. So, I just find it hard to believe incidental contact even came into this discussion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Considering who brought it up, I don't. If you look back through the thread, you will see that Rut was the first one to mention incidental contact. He did so even though the new and past POEs from the NFHS explicitly state that hand-checking is not incidental contact. We don't even have to consider it when making that call. If the criteria provided are met (such as two hands on the opposing ballhandler), then a hand-checking foul is necessary. That is what the national governing body wants. They have decided how they want the HS game to be contested. They have set the standard for what is acceptable and what is not. On the other hand there is Rut with his own personal opinion which he seems to think trumps the thoughts of those on the national committee. He obviously believes that his view is better for the game, and thus chooses to ignore the direct statements of the NFHS committee.
Now these are your comments unedited (except for the red, underlining and bold print of course).

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 04, 2008, 10:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,022
PS Scrapper cited two previous threads on this for you. I think that you are referred to in post #12 of the first thread.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 05, 2008, 01:00am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
1) I don't feel like climbing up in the attic but I am pretty sure that this play has been in either the NFHS Casebook or the Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada Casebook in the past.

2) This is really a simple play and as I have said earlier in this post, this interpretation has been in effect for both high school and college for well over 45 years. I can't see any other ruling based upon the rules.

1) You can spend a year in your freaking attic and you'll never find anything to support that statement. There's NEVER been anything cited at ANY time ANYWHERE that will back you up.

2) And the correct call to be made when a defender moves laterally under an airborne opponent after that opponent has left their feet is a simple play too. That didn't stop the (very) odd official from screwing that call completely up also. The same type of official would call a violation on this play.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 05, 2008, 08:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
This ruling is nonsense and cannot be supported by rule.

The rule clearly says, "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. "

The ball was last touched in the frontcourt by B, meaning that it was NOT last touched in the froncourt by A. It was touched in the backcourt by A.

Now, I am challenging MTD to PROVE that this interpretation has been in force for 45 years. You see, just you saying so doesn't mean didley. Put your money where your mouth is.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 05, 2008, 10:51am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
This ruling is nonsense and cannot be supported by rule.

The rule clearly says, "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. "

The ball was last touched in the frontcourt by B, meaning that it was NOT last touched in the froncourt by A. It was touched in the backcourt by A.
That's a concise analysis of why that particular ruling should never have been issued. It simply does not have rules backing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NevadaRef: NFHS 2007-08 Rules Interpretation - Situation 10. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Basketball 2 Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:42am
2007-08 Case Book 10.6.1 Situation A: NoFear Basketball 10 Thu Jun 26, 2008 07:00pm
2007 NFHS Rules Changes - "Step and Reach" Dakota Softball 8 Mon Jul 10, 2006 02:46pm
Situation - NFHS Rules whiskers_ump Softball 5 Tue Apr 12, 2005 07:40am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1