Thread: Disconcerting ?
View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2021, 12:08pm
BillyMac BillyMac is offline
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,952
Due Diligence ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
Billy, you may be right about 9-1-3c applying to bench personnel, but none of the other citations you posted directly support or address what you are asserting. Do you have anything on point in regards to bench personnel?
No.

As you pointed out, I threw all the spaghetti at the wall to see what stuck and what didn't stick. None of my citations state that one can't call a distracting violation on bench personnel, and I liked the red highlighted wording in 9.1.3 SITUATION D.

I'll leave it up the other Forum members to find the citations and interpretations that back up JRutledge's assertion that one can't call a distracting violation on bench personnel. I've already done my due diligence as an esteemed Forum member.

The proper interpretation hinges on the NFHS definition of "opponent" (found 152 times in the rulebook but no specific definition).

__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Jan 02, 2021 at 03:30pm.
Reply With Quote