FIBA - division line throw-in violation

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nah, the NCAA does that. I'm talking about the extension of FC and BC into the OOB area.

Why would you qualify this rule as dumb?

As a result of good defence in the FC, the ball is deflected OOB. Give me a good reason why the offence is allowed to throw in their BC.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

Why would you qualify this rule as dumb?

As a result of good defence in the FC, the ball is deflected OOB. Give me a good reason why the offence is allowed to throw in their BC.

I think your premise is flawed. There are too many reasons the ball could be out in the defense's back court that have nothing to do with good defense. Maybe they committed a 8 second violation (10 seconds in the US). Maybe they threw it out of bounds. Maybe they traveled in the backcourt. Maybe they committed a foul resulting in a throw-in.

Good defense would result in a steal or offensive foul. Adequate defense could result in a ball deflected out of bounds.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think your premise is flawed. There are too many reasons the ball could be out in the defense's back court that have nothing to do with good defense. Maybe they committed a 8 second violation (10 seconds in the US). Maybe they threw it out of bounds. Maybe they traveled in the backcourt. Maybe they committed a foul resulting in a throw-in.

Good defense would result in a steal or offensive foul. Adequate defense could result in a ball deflected out of bounds.

I was talking of a good defence when the ball has FC status. Call it adequate, if you prefer. Why should the offence be allowed to pass in their BC?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

I was talking of a good defence when the ball has FC status. Call it adequate, if you prefer. Why should the offence be allowed to pass in their BC?

Because that's only one of several reasons there would be a throwin in the offense's FC. Why reward the defense for committing a foul, or for kicking the ball, or for committing a violation in their backcourt?

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Because that's only one of several reasons there would be a throwin in the offense's FC. Why reward the defense for committing a foul, or for kicking the ball, or for committing a violation in their backcourt?

I guess you're not a fan of the shot-clock rule as they changed it in the NCAA, which precisely "rewards" the defense for kicking the ball, for example.

Talking FIBA, the offence has already had their 8 seconds in the BC, so they're bound to remain in the FC. I don't see anything "dumb" in this. There are dumber rules, IMO (the location of a player can be both in the BC and in the FC, for example). Don't take for dumb anything simply unusual.

Ciao

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

I guess you're not a fan of the shot-clock rule as they changed it in the NCAA, which precisely "rewards" the defense for kicking the ball, for example.

Talking FIBA, the offence has already had their 8 seconds in the BC, so they're bound to remain in the FC. I don't see anything "dumb" in this. There are dumber rules, IMO (the location of a player can be both in the BC and in the FC, for example). Don't take for dumb anything simply unusual.

Ciao

Yes, the dual location (FC and BC) confused me a bit too. I understand the goal of the rule, and the restirctions that FIBA is trying to place, but their method to do it, although necessary, isn't the easiest rule to pick up.

[SmokeEater]

My understanding is the premise of the rule here is to keep play moving toward the basket for an attempt to score. When you allow the play to reverse back into the offensive backcourt it defeats the intentions FIBA promotes to play a more offensive game.

It makes sense in my head when I say that!