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 Thu Sep 18, 2008, 01:15pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
I think we have to go with my interpretation of what the rulebook actually says.
Fixed it for ya.....
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2008, 01:22pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
Fixed it for ya.....
You're joking, right? My interpretation? You're just trying to get a rise out of me, right? Please tell me you're not serious.

I'm not giving an interpretation. I'm simply reading the rule. "A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court."

Anyone who claims that a ball in flight that was last touched in the backcourt can be in the frontcourt is giving an interpretation (a very poor one), and frankly, ignoring the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2008, 01:38pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post

Anyone who claims that a ball in flight that was last touched in the backcourt can be in the frontcourt is giving an interpretation (a very poor one), and frankly, ignoring the rule.
And anybody that maybe wants to have a throw-in 70 away from where the ball was when a double foul occurred and call that throw-in spot "the spot nearest to where the ball was located" is frankly not thinking about the intent and purpose of that rule imco.

Imo the rulesmakers want to put the POI at the closest spot to where the ball IS when the interruption occurs....not at the spot of what caused that interruption....and not where the ball WAS before the interruption occurred.

What you think is the mindless raving of a senile mind might actually be what the rulesmakers intended.

Seriously!

I never joke.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2008, 01:55pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
What you think is the mindless raving of a senile mind might actually be what the rulesmakers intended.
So we have the rule on the one hand, and your interpretation -- which may be what was intended -- on the other.

As I said, until there is a POE that says differently, I will enforce the rule, which for once is completely unambiguous.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2008, 01:57pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
As I said, until there is a POE that says differently, I will enforce the rule, which for once is completely unambiguous.
We disagree.
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
Referee Magazine... WhistlesAndStripes Basketball 0 Tue Dec 06, 2005 08:23pm
Referee Magazine bkbjones Softball 1 Thu May 19, 2005 03:51pm
REFEREE magazine john reed Baseball 3 Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:58pm
Referee Magazine Jay R Basketball 15 Mon Dec 29, 2003 07:17pm
Referee Magazine APHP Basketball 9 Sun Mar 03, 2002 10:59pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1