Comments on: Rules are Rules, Except When They’re More Like Guidelines http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/03/11/rules-are-rules-except-when-theyre-more-like-guidelines/ Tell The Whole Damn World, This Is Blog Territory! Mon, 21 May 2012 07:06:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Bears Necessity http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/03/11/rules-are-rules-except-when-theyre-more-like-guidelines/#comment-1902 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:34:57 +0000 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/03/11/rules-are-rules-except-when-theyre-more-like-guidelines/#comment-1902 <strong>Cal Football Spring Links and BlogLove</strong> Click to continue reading &#8220;&#8221; Share This ... Cal Football Spring Links and BlogLove

Click to continue reading “”
Share This
…

]]> by: ragnarok http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/03/11/rules-are-rules-except-when-theyre-more-like-guidelines/#comment-1875 Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:22:47 +0000 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/03/11/rules-are-rules-except-when-theyre-more-like-guidelines/#comment-1875 I agree, it's a poorly written rule. I don't know that it's no longer relevant (there are still 7' 6" giants out there who could take advantage of its removal), but it could certainly be clarified to give the official a better idea of which shots were intended to be prohibited and which are still allowed. As for your vagueness claim, you're right, you could make an argument about how much ball has to pass over how much backboard, and you'd certainly get lawyers to agree with you, but I think in this case such a simply written rule needs a simple interpretation. If you ask a 4-year-old if, in this instance, the ball went over the backboard, he would say yes. It didn't go around it, or to the side of it, it went over. Only part, yes, but to an innocent mind, that still means 'over'. I agree, it’s a poorly written rule. I don’t know that it’s no longer relevant (there are still 7′ 6″ giants out there who could take advantage of its removal), but it could certainly be clarified to give the official a better idea of which shots were intended to be prohibited and which are still allowed.

As for your vagueness claim, you’re right, you could make an argument about how much ball has to pass over how much backboard, and you’d certainly get lawyers to agree with you, but I think in this case such a simply written rule needs a simple interpretation. If you ask a 4-year-old if, in this instance, the ball went over the backboard, he would say yes. It didn’t go around it, or to the side of it, it went over. Only part, yes, but to an innocent mind, that still means ‘over’.

]]> by: Peter http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/03/11/rules-are-rules-except-when-theyre-more-like-guidelines/#comment-1872 Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:44:34 +0000 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/03/11/rules-are-rules-except-when-theyre-more-like-guidelines/#comment-1872 I don't think the NCAA coordinator's comments mean that Shipp's shot was illegal, only that the rule was not intended to make such shots illegal. Since it is still a rule, it should be called when obvious. However, the irrelevance of the rule today is a good justification of its future removal. Another problem with the rule is that it is somewhat vague. To me at least, it looks like only part of the ball passed over the backboard. The rule only says that it is illegal when "the ball" passes over. My question is, is it illegal if any part of the ball goes through the plane segment over the basket, or must all of the ball pass through that area? IIRC, the rule about generally being out of bounds discusses "contact." Unfortunately there is nothing in the air for the ball to make contact with, so that rule doesn't really apply. I think that if the rule's application is ambiguous when applied to a relatively common case, it's just a bad rule. I don’t think the NCAA coordinator’s comments mean that Shipp’s shot was illegal, only that the rule was not intended to make such shots illegal. Since it is still a rule, it should be called when obvious. However, the irrelevance of the rule today is a good justification of its future removal.

Another problem with the rule is that it is somewhat vague. To me at least, it looks like only part of the ball passed over the backboard. The rule only says that it is illegal when “the ball” passes over. My question is, is it illegal if any part of the ball goes through the plane segment over the basket, or must all of the ball pass through that area?

IIRC, the rule about generally being out of bounds discusses “contact.” Unfortunately there is nothing in the air for the ball to make contact with, so that rule doesn’t really apply. I think that if the rule’s application is ambiguous when applied to a relatively common case, it’s just a bad rule.

]]>