Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
How can you justify not calling the rule uniformly? How could you possibly call the rule,as written,against one team-and ignore it against another team? All of your posts in this thread so far seem to point out that you think it is mandatory to call something according to the strict language of a written rule,and now you are recommending that we selectively apply a certain rule only. Why???
|
JR, this discussion has been a bit confusing as we have been jumping back and forth between different senarios. There are two distinctly different plays at issue:
1. A player steps on or touches an object which is ON the boundary line.
2. A player is touched by a coach. (His or the opposing coach.)
In play #1 we have a clear rule (7-1-1)with very specific language to cover the situation. In this case I do believe that we should follow it to the letter and the quotes of mine which you provided apply to this situation.
In play #2 we are admittedly stretching a rule to cover the situation. (10-4-2 or 10-4-1 it is unclear to me which rule would best apply.) Since we are doing this, the language given under whichever rule we select will not be as clear and specific to the situation, therefore, I believe that more flexibility in its application and interpretation is called for.
To be as clear as possible, I do not believe that a coach touching a player necessarily means that he has entered the court. However, if it is distracting, unnerving, or disadvantageous to such a player, I think that the coach's action should be construed as unsporting. Obviously this interpretation would only make sense if the player and coach were on opposing teams.
However, if there is a clarification or NFHS casebook ruling that a coach who touches a player on the court during the game is considered to have entered the court, then I'd have to say that it applies the same to members of the same team just the same as it would to opponents.
Hope that clarifies my views for you.