|
|||
Quote:
Again, while I'm not a fan of the interp, I can kinda see what they are trying to do. Let me give an example - A1 throws a pass that hits B1, who happens to be standing OOB. A1 "caused" the ball to go OOB by hitting B1 (the ball has the same location as the player it touches), so why doesn't B get the throw-in? Because of that same simultaneous theory - the touch by B1 was, in effect, the last to touch inbounds, and also the first to touch OOB, causing the violation by B1, not A1. Normally I would disagree, but if I find out they're meeting in WI, all bets are off.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
||||
The OOB rule is not the same as the backcourt rule. For OOB, it's very clearly defined that the player standing OOB causes the ball to be OOB when he touches it. For backcourt, this is not the rule.
It very specifically says the team must be the last to touch it in the FC and the first to touch it in the backcourt. If they can see one event satisfying both criteria, then their better than Scotty, because they can change the laws of physics. And if they decide to meet in WI, I would hope they would tell all the members so someone doesn't wander around unaware that he's missing a powerful meeting of the minds that could change history.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
OK, guys. Here's some nit-picky background NF rules info to help.
In order to have a back court violation, four conditions must be present. If any one of these conditions is missing, there is no violation - no exceptions. 1) There must be team control 2) The ball must have achieved front court status 3) The team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in front court 4) That same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the back court Also remember - during a time of no team control (like during an NF throwin), team control is established when a player establishes player control. Player control is defined as a player holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Hope that helps some of you. BTW - I spent a month in Wisconsin one night.
__________________
Yom HaShoah |
|
|||
Quote:
Maybe that wandering person wasn't told for a reason?...
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
||||
Quote:
Yeah, I can understand that. Hey, wait a minute....
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
I Said What I Meant, And I Meant What I Said ...
The throwin ended when the ball touched B1. Since the throwin ended, this situation occurred after the throwin, but before team control was established. That's what I meant to say. I think.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
|||
The Infamous Situation Ten ...
Nevada is right about this casebook play being "odd", but the casebook play doesn't apply to the original post because team control has not yet been established. In Nevada's infamous casebook play, team control has already been established.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
||||
Quote:
My point, however, in answer to your next post, is that while the interp very obviously mentions team control, the leap to that interp from the rule is much smaller than the leap from that interp to another one that says the OP is a violation. If one event can qualify for two things that must happen at different points in time (the interp) in one instance, why can't they happen in another? I agree that the team control thing, or the lack of it, would most likely help the committee keep their heads on this one.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
Let us not ask. Stick to the rule as we know it, and make the backcourt violation call, or in this case don't make it, accordingly. And to anticipate the next question: Have I decided to totally ignore the above referenced interp? an emphatic yes
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
||||
May I humbly suggest you take you suggestion and....
wait a second, wrong discussion. Sorry. Look, I'm not saying the call should be made any way other than by rule. I'm not even saying Nevada's introduction of the interp into this thread wasn't somewhat gratuitous. But, this is a discussion board; and one with a history of taking a thread and extrapolating on other similar topics. This is especially common when a particular question is answered rather quickly and succinctly (as in this thread). Feel free to ignore the thread or not (in the interest of not telling you what to do.)
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch a ball...............if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt........
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
backcourt | oc | Basketball | 83 | Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:23pm |
backcourt? | missinglink | Basketball | 8 | Thu Jan 26, 2006 01:49am |
Backcourt | gostars | Basketball | 6 | Tue Nov 02, 2004 08:56pm |
Backcourt | Laker D | Basketball | 14 | Sun Oct 24, 2004 01:40am |
Backcourt?? | Rock'nRef | Basketball | 6 | Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:42pm |