The Official Forum
Page 5 of 5 « First 34 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   POI and Referee Magazine case play (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/49011-poi-referee-magazine-case-play.html)

Jurassic Referee Sat Sep 20, 2008 07:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 538310)
To me, though, it's a pretty clear rule when it says "the location of the ball is defined...."
That case play posted on the FED web site clarified the rule.....soooooooo, I'm not questioning that the rule is incorrect. Imo though, the logic used in the case play sureashell is faulty. That case play doesn't reflect the purpose and intent of having a POINT that relates to where the ball actually <b>is</b> when the POI is being used.

The only thing I can figger out is that they maybe let a coupla pointy-haired IAABO bosses onto the FED rules committee by accident.

BillyMac Sat Sep 20, 2008 07:34pm
New And Improved ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 538327)
The only thing I can figger out is that they maybe let a coupla pointy-haired IAABO bosses onto the FED rules committee by accident.
Hey? I don't even have a dog in this fight.

And by the way, the B stands for Basketball, not Blind. You won't find an IAABO patch on this guy:

http://re3.yt-thm-a04.yimg.com/image/25/m7/3911878997

Jurassic Referee Sat Sep 20, 2008 07:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 538330)
Hey? I don't even have a dog in this fight.

http://re3.yt-thm-a04.yimg.com/image/25/m7/3911878997
Close enough.....

Kelvin green Sat Sep 20, 2008 08:11pm
Now I am going to throw out my two cents...

I know we have POI by definition... but ...

What seems incongruent and inconsistent is that a double foul is the only place we dont take the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot of the foul..

I understand the ruling and understand POI but still... just something to make you wonder

Nevadaref Sat Sep 20, 2008 08:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin green (Post 538335)
Now I am going to throw out my two cents...

I know we have POI by definition... but ...

What seems incongruent and inconsistent is that a double foul is the only place we dont take the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot of the foul..

I understand the ruling and understand POI but still... just something to make you wonder
The same is also done on simultaneous fouls.

Scrapper1 Sun Sep 21, 2008 08:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin green (Post 538335)
What seems incongruent and inconsistent is that a double foul is the only place we dont take the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot of the foul..
I agree with this, Kelvin (understanding that it's also true of simultaneous fouls). This was actually a big deal when the POI rule came in. It took a long time for some officials to really absorb the fact that you didn't go to the spot of the fouls.

Back In The Saddle Sun Sep 21, 2008 05:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 538337)
The same is also done on simultaneous fouls.
Only in theory ;)

BayStateRef Sun Sep 21, 2008 06:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr
The 2006-07 interpretation is WRONG!! please note that the Rules Committee references a rule that does not exist: R7-S5-A9; .
Mark:
I answered this earlier (see Post #38) You are wrong -- and you insist on repeating this as though if you say it enough it will be true. The rule cited existed when the case play was written. It has since been moved to 4-36-1 and 4-36-2a (definition of point of interruption).

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Sep 22, 2008 02:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStateRef (Post 538422)
Mark:
I answered this earlier (see Post #38) You are wrong -- and you insist on repeating this as though if you say it enough it will be true. The rule cited existed when the case play was written. It has since been moved to 4-36-1 and 4-36-2a (definition of point of interruption).

BayStateRef:

You just made my point. A reference to a rule that does not exist, a reference to a rule that does not apply, and a reference to a rule that is off by one (1) article (the correct article being R4-S36-A2a) and the ruling does not follow the correct article (R4-S36-A2a) that states where the throw-in shall be taken.

MTD, Sr.

Scrapper1 Mon Sep 29, 2008 02:08pm
Hey mtd, sr!!
 
So, uh, what'd you hear from Mary? :cool:

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Sep 29, 2008 07:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 540069)
So, uh, what'd you hear from Mary? :cool:

Scrapper:

To be honest, I haven't made the time to email Mary, because of more important family business. But I will get to it somethime this school year.

MTD, Sr.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04pm.
Page 5 of 5 « First 34 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1