FED Reaching Through the Plane

[deecee]

I don't see what is so complicated about all this. They made it as clear as possible. There is no room for debate or personal preference. This is as black and white as an out of bounds call. Contact with the thrower in by an opponent is an IF. Contact with the ball OOB while in the hands of the thrower in is a T.

It's stated in black ink on white paper. Who cares what other rules say elsewhere? IF A happens penalize with option 1. IF B then use option 2, etc.

There is no mention for use of judgement as there would be in dead ball contact situations. The rule says TO NOT CONTACT THE THROWER IN. Where is the grey area?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't see what is so complicated about all this....

I agree with that.

My issue is they changed one part of the throwin restrictions and not the other. The rules are far easier if they consistent....they were before and now they're not.

They also called it an "editorial" change. It was not...it was a rule change in disguise.

[deecee]

Yeah, but I don't think into things that much I guess. Its not my place to make this avocation any more complicated than it need be. If the rules give such a black and white rule I just take it as face level.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Yeah, but I don't think into things that much I guess. Its not my place to make this avocation any more complicated than it need be. If the rules give such a black and white rule I just take it as face level.

A well written set of rules would apply the same principles to similar situations. That makes them simpler and makes the job of the officials simpler as a result. Indirectly, it generally make for a better game as everyone can understand the rules rather than having to memorize hundreds of variations of scenarios that can't be derived from basic concepts.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A well written set of rules would apply the same principles to similar situations. That makes them simpler and makes the job of the officials simpler as a result. Indirectly, it generally make for a better game as everyone can understand the rules rather than having to memorize hundreds of variations of scenarios that can't be derived from basic concepts.

Camron, in an ideal world I would agree with your statement. But when, in reality does it ever work so. Basketball is a complex game that involves a lot of moving parts that we, as officials, must oversee.

IF one rule says something and another one offers an exception to the first rules penalty or adjudication, then I am not going to stress over it. I'll let the rules committee deal with it. Arguing, back and forth, the validity of the exception and the confusion that the rules MIGHT cause only adds to confuse many officials.

In this case the rule is simple and black and white. I like that as IT SHOULD provide a more uniform application of how the FED wants it addressed. I also think it's a very simple variation that doesn't require a PhD to comprehend. Some officials will screw it up. Then again some officials screw up the most basic of rules time and time again.

So, in short, I agree with your statement that the rules should be simpler and not contradict one another. However, in cases where there is a lack of uniformity, and clear direction is given, debating the validity of the penalty doesn't serve much good, unless there is someone from the FED here who would listen and consider a revision.

Truth be told. How often does this come up? In my almost 10 years, maybe a handful of times. And even though the breaking of the plane rule is written as black and white I think there is grey as to how and when the DOG/warning should be penalized.