Is this correct?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I just wished to check that you weren't saying that FC and BC status didn't exist without team control. The FC/BC status of a player or the ball may be not matter most of the time without team control, but does exist and can certainly be determined.

Of a player, maybe. I would say the FC/BC status of the ball may not be determined without team control.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Ok, now you really made me think about this one, and the best that I can do is come up with some plays in which either the location of the players or the ball matters to the subsequent administration of the game, but during which there was no team control. However, whether that location is FC or BC isn't really important. All that is important is that the rules instruct us to go to a point nearest that location. So I guess that I have to agree with your contention that FC/BC distinction isn't important on plays where team control doesn't exist, as long as we acknowledge that there is independent relevance to the location of the players and the ball and that location can impact the administration of the game.

Consider these plays:
1. A1 has the ball for a throw-in along the endline following a goal by Team B. He tries to throw the ball the length of the floor to A2, but B3 standing in the FT lane (a) nearest Team B's basket, (b) near the division line, or (c) nearest Team A's basket kicks the ball. Where's the new throw-in location?

Of your three plays, this is the only one where FC/BC have an arguable relevance; in determining whether the throwin is a spot throwin or an endline throwin. Since this is generally determined without reference to FC/BC, but instead by referencing whose basket is which, I say it's "arguable."

Good stuff, I think.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Of your three plays, this is the only one where FC/BC have an arguable relevance; in determining whether the throwin is a spot throwin or an endline throwin. Since this is generally determined without reference to FC/BC, but instead by referencing whose basket is which, I say it's "arguable."

I am missing your point here please explain because this is directly addressed in 7.5-7

ART. 7 . . . After a goal or awarded goal as in 7-4-3, the team not credited with the score shall make the throw-in from the end of the court where the goal was made and from any point outside the end line. A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or common foul (before the throw-in ends and before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would have been on the end line. Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or he/she may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundaryline.

again old book but no significant change has occurred that I am aware of.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

I am missing your point here please explain because this is directly addressed in 7.5-7

ART. 7 . . . After a goal or awarded goal as in 7-4-3, the team not credited with the score shall make the throw-in from the end of the court where the goal was made and from any point outside the end line. A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or common foul (before the throw-in ends and before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would have been on the end line. Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or he/she may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundaryline.

again old book but no significant change has occurred that I am aware of.

My point is simply that 7-5-7 does not refer to BC or FC, only the basket where the goal was made.

I think it backs up the assertion that FC/BC do not exist, per the rules, without team control.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think it backs up the assertion that FC/BC do not exist, per the rules, without team control.

Okay that is simple - I do not think that that would be an assertion though -
that would be fact - since without team control it is only a location on the floor - there is no FC/BC status.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

Okay that is simple - I do not think that that would be an assertion though -
that would be fact - since without team control it is only a location on the floor - there is no FC/BC status.

Exactly.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

I do not think that that would be an assertion though - that would be fact

It's an assertion when someone utters or writes it sincerely (non-ironically); the fact is what makes the assertion true.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It's an assertion when someone utters or writes it sincerely (non-ironically); the fact is what makes the assertion true.

English teacher, writer, or philosopher? Give us a hint. Maybe I don't need a hint, I've already got two clues, a username that includes "Byron", and a signature that contains the British informal goodbye, "Cheers". You're a poet.