Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Why would you need additional language? Just get rid of the stupid interpretation. Problem solved.
|
I believe that additional language would be needed to make the NFHS make the full switch to the NCAA deflection backcourt rule (not to fix the stupid interpretation, which the new language hopefully now takes makes null and void).
The stupid interpretation may be correct by the ultra strictest most literal interpretation of the rule language (simultaneous last to touch, first to touch), at least according to the stupid interpretation (publicized twice for good measure.) Getting rid of the stupid interpretation would certainly be one way to deal with it. I prefer that it completely match the written rule, now with the exception built in, to bury this issue for good, for all time. This was a case where the old literal written rule didn't really match the intent and purpose of the rule, although I'm sure that most of us would, in a real game, have ruled by intent and purpose rather than the old literal written rule with its stupid interpretation.