So it's not in rule book at all? C'mon, all the momentum hocus pocus discussed here? This what I'm alluding to.

Anyway, not a big deal. I still contend back court and someone missed an easy call..........like all of us have done.

By the way, my faith was restored in the NBA last night as a travel was called along with a 5 second inbounding violation in a critical part of the Bulls/Pistons game.

They must have been reading this thread.

Is everything you know about officiating and what a rule means found in the rulebook (NCAA or NFHS)? No. Many things are clarified through interpretations and bulletins...and even by tribal knowledge regarding common things.

The fact that the rule mentions "positive position" implies that there is something about it that matters. The fact that it isn't spelled out explicitly in the book doesn't mean it isn't defined in some manner elsewhere.

Watch Out For The Flying Pigs ...
 

Yeah. NBA officials read this Forum all the time, and use the suggestions that we make to help them to make calls in their games. Now you better take cover, because the black helicopters are coming for you.

Camron, come back to the herd......we're discussing a specific rule. To the uninitiated(possibly me) we have a backcourt violation as seen on tape.

Is this a rule or not? Taylor says yes, you seem to feel it's nuance or philosophy.

Much ado about nothing as that old feller said. If it is a rule(albeit a poor one IMHO) I can sit smuggly at a game or in a bar when it happens and give condescending looks at fans and tell them they don't know the rules. I'd rather do that than explain they sorta don't want to call that.


From bgtaylor

What APG said is right, but one thing he forgot involving positive position is that we allow for momentum... We don't expect a player to gather the ball at the last second and then stop on a dime just for backcourt purposes. If he re-gathers after the deflection but his momentum carries him into the backcourt that is a legal play under NBA rules.
Like it or don't like it, it doesn't matter they applied the rule correctly.

In the rule, there is the term "positive position". It is clearly meant to mean something. If you don't know and can't tell what it means, you can't argue that it means anything one way or the other. Since it is not defined IN the book, it must be defined by interpretation....and if that interpretation includes momentum, then it includes momentum. There is not much you or I have to dispute that.

To me, it sounds like (and this is only by inferring from the discussion and what I've seen called), "positive position" means a clear and stable position.

Much like the NFHS and NCAA allow exceptions in the cases of throwins, steals, etc. in order to not have violations they feel are not consistent with the real purpose of the rule, the NBA appears allow an additional exception after defensive deflections...and those exceptions appear to include allowing the offensive team to recover the ball without fear splitting hairs at the division line and resulting in a backcourt violation.

The momentum interpretation is included as part of "positive position." How do you know this? Because someone who works under the freaking rule set and gets direction from the League has told you.

Realistically speaking, the rule book is written for their officials and those who work under the rule set. The NBA doesn't need worry about making sure its rule book is as fully comprehensive as the NFHS basketball rule book.

Yep, just like I figured. It's not in there. :D

BTW, that's a weak a$$ explanation. :D :D

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here...if anything? Are you saying btaylor isn't telling the truth? Are you hung up on the fact that positive position isn't explicitly defined in the rules book?

Not hung up on anything. Just real obvious that there's nothing in the NBA Rules to support his "momentum" statement. That's why I asked for him, and not you or BNR, to clarify it. Instead, we got nothing.

Now, if if the rule doesn't exists and they call it that way because that's how they're told to call it, fine. But if that's true, then it's just another reason NBA officials take so much heat from owners, coaches, players, fans and the media. The NBA places officials at a disadvantage with that type of crap.

If that's the way you're going to call it, then put it in the damn book. There's no reason not to.

BNR answered whether or not BTaylor worked in the NBA, not what the rule was. You definitely seemed to be hung up on that bit information. :rolleyes:

It seems like it is....under "positive position". It may not be explicitly defined but those were are not just there to look good. Since it isn't defined, no one can say there is nothing about momentum in the book since that may be exactly what that phrase is talking about.

I agree, except with the NBA, there's a finite number of officials, hired by the same people who write and interpret the rules. It wouldn't be nearly as difficult to disseminate this interpretation to all of the officials as it would to high school or even college officials; none of whom are hired by the folks that actually write and interpret the rules (with the exception of 67 games at the end of the NCAA season.)

While I agree they should definitely make the rule match the interpretation, it's not as vital for the NBA as it is for the NFHS (like, say, the back court rule).