By unilateral decree...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So you can explain how it's physically possible to simultaneously do something before and after the same event?

Snaqs:

The Rules Committees' position has been that the before and after event occur simultaneously. That is what simultaneously means.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Snaqs:

The Rules Committees' position has been that the before and after event occur simultaneously. That is what simultaneously means.

MTD, Sr.

Hence the absurdity of the ruling. There are just way to many non-sense plays that are created as a result of Situation 10 for it to have any chance of being correct.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Hence the absurdity of the ruling. There are just way to many non-sense plays that are created as a result of Situation 10 for it to have any chance of being correct.

Camron:

Read my initial post in this thread (#29). This is an interpretation that has been around for over 45 years. I really don't see how way too many nonsense plays can be created as the result of this interpretation. It is a logical interpretation and quite a simple and elegant interpretation.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I had my first game of the season tonight, a men's college jr. varsity game. A run and gun game. It is 01:27amEST, and it is way past this old man's bedtime. Good night all.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron:

Read my initial post in this thread (#29). This is an interpretation that has been around for over 45 years. I really don't see how way too many nonsense plays can be created as the result of this interpretation. It is a logical interpretation and quite a simple and elegant interpretation.

I've seen no evidence that this position existed before last year.

There are many crazy situations IF this interpratation were true....

#1. A1 dribbling the ball in the backcourt with one foot on each side of the line. B1 slightly touches the ball (or is touched by the ball) just before it returns to A1's hand during the dribble. Since B1's touching ends the dribble (and removing the benefit of the 3-points rule), the ball gains FC status on B1's touch. The moment it returns to A1's hand, you have a backcourt violation. B1 only needs to get a finger tip on the ball as it returns to A1's hand to cause A1 to violate.

#2. A1 near the division line in the BC attempts a pass to A2, also near the division line in the BC. B1 jumps from the FC in an attempt to intercept the pass. B1 slightly deflects the pass but the pass continues on, in flight, to A2. By your interpratation, this would be a BC violation against A.

These two results are just nonsense.

This interpretation is in direct contradiction with the rules. THere is NO way to read the rules and come to this conclusion. It may be that some people believe that this was the case...and perhaps for a long time....but there is no rules basis for that conclusion.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#1. A1 dribbling the ball in the backcourt with one foot on each side of the line. B1 slightly touches the ball (or is touched by the ball) just before it returns to A1's hand during the dribble. Since B1's touching ends the dribble (and removing the benefit of the 3-points rule), the ball gains FC status on B1's touch. The moment it returns to A1's hand, you have a backcourt violation. B1 only needs to get a finger tip on the ball as it returns to A1's hand to cause A1 to violate.

A slight touch, if A1 does not lose control, does not end the dribble.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A slight touch, if A1 does not lose control, does not end the dribble.

What if that slight touch was intentional?

[Adam]

Okay, when does the rule say a dribble ends?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What if that slight touch was intentional?

What if it was? The rule used to say "a bat by an opponent" ended the dribble, but had no provision for the dribble to end if the opponent "was touched" by the ball. Now the two are lumped together, ball touches or is touched by, but the phrase "causes the dribbler to lose control" is attached to both. This change took place after a long discussion here about this matter, which was sparked by a "good question" by, uh, okay, it was me.