Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Who wrote these? They certainly leave a lot to be desired for what are supposed to be clarifying rulings.
#2, in the last sentence says "If either foot is moved" when it should say "either foot is lifted". In all other facets of the travel rule, a moved foot is one that is lifted and returned to the floor.
#4. Says the number can't be above the number, but that it has to be in the apex of the neckline. Isn't apex of the neckline above the number. Likewise for the shoulder area. It can be above the number but it has to be in a specific place above the number.
#5. Not actually supported by rule even though that is the commonly used interpretation. The rule actually says that you can't OBTAIN LGP with a foot OOB. It says nothing about maintaining LGP. This situation says that the defender obtained LGP and then stepped OOB. If that is what they want, the rule should be changed to say that.
#9. No problem with what it says, but I wish they'd change the rule about delaying the return inbounds to be a violation. It will almost never get calls as a T.
|
I have some disagreement with this post. BillyMac already posted the correction to #5, so I won't bother with that.
#2 A standing player in possesion of the ball may always jump into the air without violating. It is the returning to the floor which is the issue, so I am fine with the language used by the NFHS. As you note, the NFHS is using the word "moved" to signify a change in location of the foot from one spot on the floor to another. The lifting is not illegal by itself, whether it is done with both feet or only one.
#4 Uniform regulation are somewhat confusing. This play ruling does about the best job that it can of clarifying that a school logo may be in the neckline of the jersey at the apex (central point), while it cannot otherwise be on the front of the jersey above the number. So the point is that if the logo is anywhere else than the one location specified by this play ruling, the jersey is illegal.
#9 What we must decide is if the current penalty for delaying one's return from out of bounds is too harsh. Perhaps, but perhaps not. This kind of deceit isn't something which we want in the game and a harsh penalty therefore serves as a deterent to attempting such deception. The lighter penalty may get called more, but if not it makes trying this trickery far more worth it because even if you do get caught and penalized, the punishment is merely a single loss of possession.