FT violation?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"On your own" is the key to our polite, I hope, disagreement. I do see a difference in reading a paper, and ink, book, or a digital PDF file, on your own, written by bunch of experts, and reading a website, on your own, that offers the views of many that differ in their expertise, but a website that does feature many experts, but where you see a big difference, I only see a small difference.

Again, it's really not wasting our time because we don't have to respond to questions that we feel are undeserving of our attention, we can just ignore them. I chose not to ignore them, others may chose otherwise.

It's the Information Age. As an old fart, I'm having more trouble adjusting to it than most of you young whippersnappers, but I do understand that information will be accessible in many different ways, ways in the near future that many of us, in the present, can't even begin to imagine.

I never said it was "wasting our time", so I don't know why you are using that phrase. But you are pawning off the rule book as "paper and ink written by some experts" and equating it to some supposed experts spouting off our opinions and interpretations. The 2 are not the same.

You need to know the rule before you can discuss its interpretation or have an opinion on it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You need to know the rule before you can discuss its interpretation or have an opinion on it.

Agree 100%.

However, some may come to the Forum not to get, or give, an interpretation; not to get, or give, an opinion; but to just get the rule straight, so that they will know the rule, understand the rule, and then maybe get into interpretations, or opinions, for themselves, or for the good of the cause.

Once an official knows the rules, then I see no problem with that official coming to the Forum for some help with a rule question.

And I have no problem with coaches, parents, or fans coming straight to the Forum. They don't have to be officials to post on the Forum, right?

Nobody could learn all the rules by just studying the Forum. Impossible. We're good, but not that good. You have to start with the rulebook, casebook, and mechanics manual, but after that, the Forum is a great informational, and educational, resource.

[jeremy341a]

I feel it should be a violation in the fact that if the ball rolls a way they shooter can not retreive it without crossing a boundry and if they don't retreive it they will not shoot the ball with in 10 seconds.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I feel it should be a violation in the fact that if the ball rolls a way they shooter can not retreive it without crossing a boundry and if they don't retreive it they will not shoot the ball with in 10 seconds.

Feelings are irrelevant. What's the rule/case play say?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Rich

Feelings are irrelevant. What's the rule/case play say?

Sorry I forgot to quote the poster who earlier said that the no violation would be a much more logical rule. I was just stating my thoughts that it should be a violation due to what I mentioned. I don't see why someone should get a do over bc of their error.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I feel it should be a violation in the fact that if the ball rolls a way they shooter can not retreive it without crossing a boundry and if they don't retreive it they will not shoot the ball with in 10 seconds.

No player control, so no time out to prevent a violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No player control, so no time out to prevent a violation?

Player control is not required, but according to the rule it's an immediate violation.

Personally, I'd support a change.

[BillyMac]

Forget the muff, or dropped ball, for now. Pretend the shooter still has the ball in her hands.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Player control is not required.

For the shooter's team to call a timeout during a live ball?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Forget the muff, or dropped ball, for now. Pretend the shooter still has the ball in her hands.



For the shooter's team to call a timeout during a live ball?

I meant it as more of a generic statement than just this play. Sorry for the confusion.

But, if A can request a TO to prevent a vioaltion under the ROP procedure, then why shouldn't they be able to request one here? (under a rules change)

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No player control, so no time out to prevent a violation?

I would agree to this.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I would agree to this.

If it wasn't an immediate violation as bob jenkins stated earlier.