|
|||
I still haven't read any combination of rules from Mr. Brown that says the POI throw-ins don't retain their original status. I want him to quote where it says it "will not be an AP throw-in" and that the endline throw-in "will now be a designated spot throw-in".
I'm sure he doesn't need step-by-step instructions how to read and then type it exactly word-for-word.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR Last edited by Raymond; Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:58am. |
|
|||
How charitable of you.
Gah! I just knew this one was coming out again...
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers |
|
|||
[QUOTE=Snaqwells;746518][/QUOTE]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Article's drafters specified no particular order or hierarchy for parts a, b, and c. It is just a simple list. We could scramble the list's identifying letters, and it would make no difference to application or meaning. The drafters easily could have (and no doubt would have) included a hierarchy if they intended one. No where does it say, if b, then not c, as you suggested in a previous post. Can we agree on that? If not, indicate the word or words that you think direct you to consider the parts in a particular hierarchical order. Don't introduce our play situation in some way, here; rely on the language as written. If we agree so far, then all parts are theoretically relevant to any given play situation, simultaneously. According to the language, then, nothing proscribes c from applying merely because b could also be construed to apply. This is where I say you depart from the language. In TI situations, you say that if b can be construed to apply, c must then be disregarded. So far, in your play situations that you have been testing my interpretation of Article 2 with, you say I have gotten the outcomes correct, but by incorrect means. My means (a strict adherence to the language) gets me the correct answers on your test situations, and then also squares me with Referee Magazine, Scrapper, and Nevada in Bob Jenkins' play situation. If there is an inconsistency, it appears to be with your means--unless you have gone back to Jurassic times. [Could not resist] |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
||||
Quote:
APTI interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? You've stated before you're using 4-36-2c to go with an AP because there is no team control (TC), is that still your opinion? Endline throwin interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? Are you going with 4-36-2c again? Standard, non-AP, spot throw-in interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? 4-36-2c? If not, why not?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Yep...and didn't see any language that says it cannot be an AP or non-designated throw-in when going to POI. Could you be so kind to quote the exact verbiage you're basing your ruling on? I'm away on business now and didn't bring my books.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
You are assuming there will be a lock.
__________________
Never hit a piñata if you see hornets flying out of it. |
|
|||
THIS is the one you were thinking about
__________________
Never hit a piñata if you see hornets flying out of it. |
|
|||
Quote:
The first step is to determine if there was team control by either side. If so, then that team receives a throw-in at the nearest OOB spot to the location of the ball. That is Part A and that takes priority over the other two listings. This is obvious too. You have a double foul while team A is dribbling near the division line. You apply Part A and stop. You don't consider using AP arrow as stated under Part C. There are even Case Book plays which instruct us on the administration and all of the rulings adhere to the A, B, C order of the POI rule. Please understand that the intent of the committee is to use the AP arrow as a last resort when determining possession. If anything else (team control, a team due a throw-in or FT, a throw-in or FT was in progress) can be used, then that takes priority and possession is awarded based upon that action. The arrow is only used when there is no reason to give one team the ball over the other, such as an unsuccessful try for goal and no one has yet obtained control of the rebound when the stoppage occurs. See the Case Book play on a DF when there is a try in flight and how to resume if it is successful or unsuccessful. |
|
|||
Quote:
Using your own words, I have to disagree with your assertion that an actual hierarchy exists in Article 2. I refer you back to your words in post 94: "Too bad that's not how they wrote the rule," ". . ., but that is NOT what the text of the POI rule says," and, "The strict text of the POI rule . . .." If the drafters indended a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be arguing about it--that's how they would have written the rule. When Article 2 is read as a whole, in context with other rules and Case Book examples that relate to POI, I don't see a purpose to divining a hierarchy. The appropriate option presents itself based on the circumstances of the play situation and a simple process of elimination. Replace the identifying letters with bullets, or scramble the list's "order", and tell me if doing so changes the outcome of any of those Case Book plays you refer to. Using your DF example while dribbling, there is no need to begin with "a". One could begin with "b" or "c", and the result is still "a", because "b" and "c" eliminate themselves, do they not? I agree with what you say regarding the definition of POI and how APTI fits into it. I don't rely on some hierarchy that is not stated in the text for that, however. Other rules and Case Book examples make it clear that the APTI component of the POI definition is a fairness mechanism, as it is used in the case of a held ball, or ball knocked OOB unseen by an official or by two opponents simultaneously. Quote:
Quote:
Same answer. The books seem to treat it the same as an official's TO--or any legally administered TO, I suppose. |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
4-36-1 lists all the times POI is to be used, and there isn't a different POI rule for IWs vs DFs. My point is, if you revert back to the original AP throw-in on an IW, you need to do so for a DF as well. 7-5-3b directs you to 4-36 for DFs, which is a redundant version of 4-36-1.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
||||
Now that you've learned to quote properly (thank you), you can drop the color changes if you want.
Now, if you think Nevada is falling, has fallen, or ever will fall, for anything I have to say; you're sadly mistaken. I don't possess that sort of power over anyone, especially Nevada. My response to this point, however, is simple. Sitch: Spot throw-in (non-AP) for A. DF called, during the throw-in, on A2 and B2. Without a heirarchy, how do you determine whether to use 4-36-2b (a new TI for A) or 4-36-2c (an APTI for whomever has the arrow)? There is no team control, and it's during a throw-in, so either could apply. Right? If not, why not? No one is saying the heirarchy is spelled out in the rule; but you can't properly apply it without going through them in order.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. Last edited by Adam; Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:09am. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Double Foul and Double Technical | routhless | Basketball | 10 | Sat Jan 30, 2010 09:53am |
throw-in after double personal during free throw | closetotheedge | Basketball | 26 | Mon Dec 01, 2008 02:39am |
Throw-in, Double Foul | tjones1 | Basketball | 48 | Wed Oct 22, 2008 02:06pm |
Double Foul During Free Throw | cropduster | Basketball | 63 | Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:00am |
Double foul on throw-in clarification | blindzebra | Basketball | 2 | Thu Dec 08, 2005 01:15pm |