Quote:
The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that. :cool: |
Quote:
But the NFHS calling it a clarification doesn't make it so; reference the 9-1-3g. They called that a clarification, but it was a rule change plain and simple. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you insist it was a rule change, then even though the NFHS unequivocably stated it was only a clarification and that it has also been universally called that way for the last 50 years at least, then it absolutely has to be a rules change. And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm referring to the change that requires at least one foot to be "near" the lane. They were "clarified" the same year, but one was clearly a change and one was clearly a clarification. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds. Quote:
"or his team" refers to any tc after pc has been established. Call me Randy, but I just cant see beginning a 10 second count before the throw-in has legally ended. |
Quote:
I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation. |
Quote:
College officials: Since tc already exists on throw-ins when do you begin your count, when the ball touches the wood or when a player gains control? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We can on folks all the time for not using proper terminology yet this rule fails to do so on this particular rule. Of course this is just my opinion. YMMV. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51am. |