Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, obviously it is less than a 5 second timeframe for multiple touches in the front court.

I'm not sure that's obvious. There's nothing in the rule itself that limits it to a single closely guarded situation. If B1 touches A1, then A1 retreats from being closely guarded and B1 reapproaches A1, who has continuously maintained possession, and touches him, B1 has fouled by the plain language of the rule even if the second touch happens outside of 5 seconds of the first touch.

I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

...
I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

I'm just gonna start having amnesia. First touch in the backcourt will just magically vanish from my mind.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm not sure that's obvious. There's nothing in the rule itself that limits it to a single closely guarded situation. If B1 touches A1, then A1 retreats from being closely guarded and B1 reapproaches A1, who has continuously maintained possession, and touches him, B1 has fouled by the plain language of the rule even if the second touch happens outside of 5 seconds of the first touch.

I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

Well what about the first touch in the back court with the T and then the ball handler goes into the C's primary and is touched again? Is the second touch a foul? No time limit right? Is that not in injustice if the C does not call the second touch that he did not even know there was a first touch? You really think the rules makers had that as the intention? And if that is their position, why did they not just come out and give that as an example since it is so clear to everyone? I do not work Two man, so this situation is very likely in my world.


Peace

[Smitty]

Not that it matters to anyone in the rest of the country, but this discussion prompted me to ask my assignor about the main point of contention in this discussion. He told me that he's had several discussions with the NF on this subject and the intent of the rule is definitely not to consider a single touch followed by another touch several seconds later as an absolute foul. The second touch might be a foul, but only if it affects the RSBQ of the ball handler - it would not be an absolute based on the rule. The hot stove touching, as BNR has described, is an absolute. He told me you can't take a literal interpretation of every single rule - common sense has to prevail. So this is how I will be interpreting the rule - pretty much as BNR and JRut have described. I think it makes sense.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Not that it matters to anyone in the rest of the country, but this discussion prompted me to ask my assignor about the main point of contention in this discussion.

The problem I see in this discussion, many people are unwilling to do that very thing. Instead they are taking their personal background and assuming it applies to this situation without an direct guidance. That is why I asked my people as well, because I wanted to be sure what I was being asked to do. Telling us that "The rule is clear" is not good enough when we are having a serious debate and the parties are separated based on their NCAA background.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well what about the first touch in the back court with the T and then the ball handler goes into the C's primary and is touched again? Is the second touch a foul? No time limit right?

By the literal reading of the rule, yes.

Is that not in injustice if the C does not call the second touch that he did not even know there was a first touch?

Yes, that's why I said it's unenforceable.

You really think the rules makers had that as the intention? And if that is their position, why did they not just come out and give that as an example since it is so clear to everyone? I do not work Two man, so this situation is very likely in my world.


Peace

I find trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility. I will readily agree with you that they often don't want the rules enforced the way they write them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

By the literal reading of the rule, yes.



Yes, that's why I said it's unenforceable.



I find trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility. I will readily agree with you that they often don't want the rules enforced the way they write them.

Most rules are not literal. Most rules are written and then there interpretations are there to suggest how we enforce or apply the rules. And it it is unenforceable, why would anyone suggest that this is the rule if someone claims you cannot enforce this consistently?

We cannot even have the NF agree on their interpretations about backcourt violation or what their language means. But the same people that complain about this issue, are the same people wanting to stick with an interpretation.

Peace