Talk:Rules of netball

Netball objectives

This section was copied over from Talk:Netball on April 24, 2011 based on the history that existed on this edit. Could someone possibly help address the feedback about the objective of netball left on my talk page? I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of the game to be able to do that adequately myself. --LauraHale (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be a semantic issue: the word "goal" refers both to the "objective" and the net representing that objective. From the former perspective "the opposing team's goal" is the net being defended by the team, not the one being defended by the opponents. However, it is common to use the opposite convention, so that, for example, an "own-goal" refers to an accidental concession of a goal to the opponents, rather than achieving the goals of the team. The best we can do, I think, is try to steer clear of the potential ambiguity. Geometry guy 23:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In netball, a team tries to shoot the ball into the "opposing" team's goal – hence the original wording (which pertained to scoring goals rather than attaining them). Think of it this way: the goal attack and goal shooter try to "attack" the other team's goal, while the goal defence and goal keeper try to "defend" their own goal. Conversely, teams don't attack their own goal, nor do they defend another team's goal. This is consistent with what's seen in other sports, in terms of defence and attack. That said, I'm all for less ambiguous wording. Not sure how best to do it for the moment. Any ideas? – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to raise above is that common convention for whose goal is whose is contrary to the etymology of the word "goal": Mrs Muffet's claim is that netball uses the logical convention rather than the one common in other sports, and she has provided evidence for that.

I had a look at a copy of the official IFNA rules. As far I can tell, they manage to avoid saying whose goal is whose, except at one point: the description of a "Toss Up" (18.5.3) reads "The two players shall stand facing each other and their own goal ends with arms straight and hands to sides, but feet in any position." Reading around, I believe that the goal ends that the players are facing are the ones they are attacking, not defending.

If the IFNA rules can almost entirely avoid mentioning whose goal is whose, perhaps Wikipedia can (and should) too. Other ways of distinguishing the goals (which I have seen used elsewhere) include "at the opponent's end", "being attacked", "attacking", "in the goal shooter's circle"...

Geometry guy 16:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding you. My perspective comes from my personal (non-playing) experience with the game. But if the IFNA rules don't mention "opposing team's goal", then neither should this article. I've proposed alternative wording below. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

in the Shakespear book (1997 version), the objective is described on page 3, paragraph 2. It says: "The object of the game is to score more goals than the opposition. Goals are scored by projecting the ball above then completely through the ring attached to a goalpost. Goals can be scored only by one of the team's two "shooters" standing within the team's goal circle. The goalposts are 3.05 metres (10 feet) high, and the ring has a net attached to it, which makes it easy to see when a goal is scored. Each goal scores one point." I'm not sure if that quote helps but that's what one book source says. The Smith/Humberstone book has no paragraph I could find that listed an objective for the game. --LauraHale (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting to add that I also checked the Noeleen Dix book. On page 5, it says in the second paragraph: "The basic aim of the game is for each team to move the ball into their scoring zone where either the Goal Shooter or Goal Attack can score goals from within the goal circle. Each goal is worth one point and the team that has the most number of points at the end of the game is the winner." --LauraHale (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Laura. It seems to me that "the team's goal circle" and "their scoring zone" support Mrs Muffet's contention that the "goal" in netball tends to be that of the attacking team. There should be enough material here now to reword the article. Geometry guy 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take a crack at it, that would be great. I'd need a serious sit down with the text to do that and as I'm on a bus while writing this, not going to try right now. --LauraHale (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's what the sources are saying (in which case, I apologise for the revert), then from the above information I'd venture the following rewording: "The object of the game is for teams to score goals, by passing a ball into their scoring zone and shooting it into the goal". Or "their goal", whichever you'd prefer (I chose "the goal" to avoid having "their" twice in the same clause). "Goal circle" is more relevant to netball than "scoring zone" is, but the sentence already uses the word "goal" twice (not sure what to do on that count). Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have restored my edit so that the incorrect information regarding "the opposing team's goal" has been removed until you decide how to reword the text in a more neutral fashion.Mrs muffet (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I found another source... I thought I would drop the text on to the talk page to help people trying to fix the wording. The page number for this quote is page 10.

• All England Netball Association (2002). Netball. Know the Game (Fourth ed.). A & C Black. ISBN 0713660023. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The aim of the game is to score goals after working the ball towards one's own goal in a manner allowed by the rules. The patterns of play come about by wise exploitation of the rule governing playing areas, so playyers must keep onside, and know what happens if they go offside (Rule 9) or the ball goes out of court (Rule 10). Before such patterns can develop, it is necessary to know how to start the game (Rules 11 and 12) and then what the rule governs goal score (Rule 15), in addition to what has already been established by Rules 4 and 8.

End quote. Not sure if this helps with the debate as to what goal is the one being scored on but if the goal that you score on is your own, this paragraph should provide an adequate citation for that. --LauraHale (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for British English

The rationale for using British English on this article is because it is a dependent daughter article for Netball. Netball is written in British English. --LauraHale (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

How about using the second paragraph of the lead of the netball article as a starting point for the lead of this article? It provides a concise summary of the rules of the game, but would probably need to be fleshed out a bit. Graham87 09:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. If we change the lead, do you think we would need to make revisions to netball or does the netball section on the rules stand well enough as it is with out needing much more assistance from this page? --LauraHale (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the section in the main netball article stands well enough as it is. I've just cobbled together a new lead for the "rules of netball" article ... the second paragraph might need to be fleshed out. I wasn't sure whether to describe all the positions of netball in the lead; they seemed to clutter up the start of the article, but it's hard to describe the mechanics of the game without more info about the positions! I took the idea of the lead from that of piano pedals, the only other article of this type that I've significantly worked on. Graham87 09:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules section

The dimensions given for the ball and hoop cannot be correct, since the ball is significantly larger than the hoop and therefore could not actually go through it.2602:30A:2EA4:230:8CE1:6B5A:6847:D4FD (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this subject, but the figures seem correct per the cited source about the rings/hoops and the Netball Australia page on equipment. Something that has a circumference of 680 to 710 millimetres (27 to 28 in) could not go through a hoop with an internal diameter of 380 millimetres (15 in). Graham87 10:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

28in Circumference=>8.91inch Diameter... so, yes it can!120.16.38.161 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)MBG