The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 11:16pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.
Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 07:59am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
I think that what I think doesn't matter. The NFHS explicitly stated that it was a freaking clarification of an existing rule. I know that because I posted a FED document that states that. Whether the FED is consistent with the term or not is completely irrelevant. It just is what it is. And what it is is not worth Randalizing imo. The play was always called that way afaik anyway.

Y'all carry on though. I'm going to tend to my petunias.
I'll agree that the rule was always supposed to be the same as it is now, so calling the change a clarification makes sense.

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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 07:59am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that.
Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 08:43am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
OK, Randy.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 08:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.
Oh, you're not alone.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 09:17am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?
Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 09:22am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
OK, Randy.

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.
I appreciate your indulgence, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not referring to the hand in the lane rule, I agree that the rule has always been called that way. I was wrong before.

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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 09:23am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.
How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 10:54am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?
I'm out of town on business so no access to my NFHS rule books. If you can quote me the 10-second rule I can elaborate.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 11:12am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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.
Team control and BC status are required for a count.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 11:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,183
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:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Team control and BC status are required for a count.
I still believe "a player" refers to pc after the throw-in has legally ended &
"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.
__________________
I gotta new attitude!
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 11:25am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by tref View Post
Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

I still believe "a player" refers to pc after the throw-in has legally ended &
"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.
Hopefully, they'll word the change to address this, but simply adding TC to the throw-in would change the rule in this regard. We can't see doing it the other way because it's a very basic thing now; 10 second count doesn't start until a player on the court establishes PC. But the only reason for that is TC is required for the count and doesn't exist on the TI.

I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 11:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Hopefully, they'll word the change to address this, but simply adding TC to the throw-in would change the rule in this regard. We can't see doing it the other way because it's a very basic thing now; 10 second count doesn't start until a player on the court establishes PC. But the only reason for that is TC is required for the count and doesn't exist on the TI.

I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation.
True! If it could only be the same across the board

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?
__________________
I gotta new attitude!
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 01:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that.
It only needs to be clarified for some. The rest understand it as it is.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2011, 02:57pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Team control and BC status are required for a count.
I would like for them to actually use the phrases "Team Control" and "Back Court Status".

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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lane Violation coach_x Basketball 2 Sat Jun 17, 2006 02:38am
Lane Violation or Not? djskinn Basketball 4 Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:08pm
lane violation timharris Basketball 4 Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:26pm
3-sec lane violation red Basketball 10 Fri Dec 12, 2003 09:27am
Lane Violation John Choiniere Basketball 7 Mon Feb 07, 2000 11:02am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1