Had a 1st last night

[Eugenia]

This is a tricky one. I believe the no call is correct because in the case study books it states a player can more around the cirlce when more they are at least 3 feet away from the center circle. The coach read the casebook and applied the loop hole...we will probably see this disconnect corrected in future rule books because this is clearly a distraction and a potential safty hazard to everyone on the floor. Wow...good one! Thanks

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Eugenia

This is a tricky one. I believe the no call is correct because in the case study books it states a player can more around the cirlce when more they are at least 3 feet away from the center circle. The coach read the casebook and applied the loop hole...we will probably see this disconnect corrected in future rule books because this is clearly a distraction and a potential safty hazard to everyone on the floor. Wow...good one! Thanks

Why? They didn't violate any rule. Who cares what they do before/during the jump?

It would be a solution in search of a problem.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eugenia

This is a tricky one. I believe the no call is correct because in the case study books it states a player can more around the cirlce when more they are at least 3 feet away from the center circle. The coach read the casebook and applied the loop hole...we will probably see this disconnect corrected in future rule books because this is clearly a distraction and a potential safty hazard to everyone on the floor. Wow...good one! Thanks

It's not:
1) a loophole
2) a safety hazard

It might be distracting, but it shouldn't be and isn't illegal just because it is.

Teams run a similar play during action and during throw-ins. They have never been discussed (afaik) as being removed from the game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's not:
1) a loophole
2) a safety hazard

It might be distracting, but it shouldn't be and isn't illegal just because it is.

Teams run a similar play during action and during throw-ins. They have never been discussed (afaik) as being removed from the game.

If it were, they'd have to outlaw motion offenses too.

[amusedofficial]

I always designate one-syllable colors at the jump and I prefer that the R do it when I don't toss. It is a short confirmation of the colors we are calling and affirming the "call" colors when we start sets them in my addled brain and helps make the nomenclature of the day automatic and the OOB and backcourt calls crisp. But then, I've always considered multi-tasking to be a fad.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

I always designate one-syllable colors at the jump and I prefer that the R do it when I don't toss. It is a short confirmation of the colors we are calling and affirming the "call" colors when we start sets them in my addled brain and helps make the nomenclature of the day automatic and the OOB and backcourt calls crisp. But then, I've always considered multi-tasking to be a fad.

Eh. I'm not saying red when the team's orange even if you'd prefer it. Designating colors is completely unnecessary.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Eugenia

This is a tricky one. I believe the no call is correct because in the case study books it states a player can more around the cirlce when more they are at least 3 feet away from the center circle. The coach read the casebook and applied the loop hole...we will probably see this disconnect corrected in future rule books because this is clearly a distraction and a potential safty hazard to everyone on the floor. Wow...good one! Thanks

Loop hole? A loop hole would imply that there is an unintended, unforeseen aspect in the rule that was not thought about. As far a safety hazard, how is this any more of a safety hazard then at any other time when players are constantly in motion?