View Single Post
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 27, 2018, 08:32am
JRutledge JRutledge is offline
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
What's with all the typing? NFHS released an "exception" to rule 9-9-1 that states an offensive player may catch/touch an airborne ball in the BC without violating if it is deflected by the defense in the FC.

The NFHS has released absolutely nothing that states there will be an exception to the "last-to-touch/first-to-touch" portion of the BC rule.

It's that simple.
I see what you are saying, but the only first touch/last touch part of the BC rule is in 9-9-1. I would hope they were not spitting hairs that much that they expected a player to just be in the BC in order to be allowed to get the ball already. Most of these situations where would be a player in the FC that would go to the BC. That is why I believe at this time (and my opinion could clearly change with the right interpretations announced), that this is the NCAA rule with bad wording.

The NF really made something simple into a very complicated thing.

I also do not understand why Billy keeps referencing proposals. Why would anyone care what was proposed and not accepted? That is not how people learn new rules based on what was not accepted.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)

Last edited by JRutledge; Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 08:40am.
Reply With Quote