Another problem with the new backcourt rule?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree, but that will not stop someone, somewhere down the road saying that they should be enforced as written....we've been there so many times it is bound to happen again.

Those are the guys that don't get it and never will.

They don't like to study what we really do, they just like to argue.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by asdf

Those are the guys that don't get it and never will.

They don't like to study what we really do, they just like to argue.

But still, it is far better to write and well written rule...one that is simple, concise, and accurate than to depend on tribal knowledge about what they really meant.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Depend on tribal knowledge about what they really meant.

If an intelligent alien from Mars landed on Earth and wanted to become a basketball official, and he memorized the 2011-12 rule book backward, and forward, how would he know the purpose and intent of this team control rule, and the "intent" of this rule in regard to the backcourt rule?

[k_st8r]

the new team control rules effect all team control violations??? How??

Even though the team is in control during the throw in, no front court or back court status has been established.... no 3 second... 10 second... etc... what am I missing????

An additional situation... a1 in back court throws to a2 in front court, a2 turns his heaad and the ball hits a2 in the back.... upon contact of a2 two feet and the ball are in front court, ball bounces back to a1 in the back court... violation???? I know my call.. do you know yours??

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by k_st8r

the new team control rules effect all team control violations??? How??

By definition. It's been that way in NCAA for a few years now.

Even though the team is in control during the throw in, no front court or back court status has been established.... no 3 second... 10 second... etc... what am I missing????

Again, by definition. The change (although poorly implemented) was desinged ONLY to not have FTs when the "offense" fouls during a throw-in, so it's treated the same as other game situations.

An additional situation... a1 in back court throws to a2 in front court, a2 turns his heaad and the ball hits a2 in the back.... upon contact of a2 two feet and the ball are in front court, ball bounces back to a1 in the back court... violation???? I know my call.. do you know yours??

First, the "three points rule" applies only during a dribble, so it's not relevant in your play. Second, this ruling hasn't changed. It has "always" been a BC violation, and still is.

[k_st8r]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

By definition. It's been that way in NCAA for a few years now.



Again, by definition. The change (although poorly implemented) was desinged ONLY to not have FTs when the "offense" fouls during a throw-in, so it's treated the same as other game situations.



First, the "three points rule" applies only during a dribble, so it's not relevant in your play. Second, this ruling hasn't changed. It has "always" been a BC violation, and still is.

LMAO...well stated, I guess the point I'm making is guys read too much into the rule. You would be AMAZED at how many guys miss it......And I mean good veteran officials

[APG]

Originally Posted by k_st8r

LMAO...well stated, I guess the point I'm making is guys read too much into the rule. You would be AMAZED at how many guys miss it......And I mean good veteran officials

To be fair, the rule could be better written. Wouldn't be surprised if we get some editorial changes to reflect a clearing meaning behind the rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by k_st8r

LMAO...well stated, I guess the point I'm making is guys read too much into the rule. You would be AMAZED at how many guys miss it......And I mean good veteran officials

So when a brand new official pops open the rule book and reads about needing both "player and team control" in the front court in order to have a BC violation, he's reading too much into the rule?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by k_st8r

LMAO...well stated, I guess the point I'm making is guys read too much into the rule. You would be AMAZED at how many guys miss it......And I mean good veteran officials

Actually, the committed wrote the rule with a wording that indicates, as written, that the backcourt violations are affected. They then commented that it shouldn't be and that only the throwin is affected regardless of what the rule actually says. No one is reading too much into the rule....the rule was poorly written.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by asdf

Those are the guys that don't get it and never will.

They don't like to study what we really do, they just like to argue.

Not necessarily. Could be someone who begins his officiating career in the summer of 2012 and hasn't been privy to the previous wording of the rules. We've had quite a few debates here in which 5,6,7 year-old interps are used to provide the answer because the rule and case books aren't clear.

[deecee]

Best way i handle these debates pull in our rules interpreter and one or two members on the board and ask. HOW DO YOU WANT US TO HANDLE THIS?

Ends any debate and gives clear direction on which way to move forward.