Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref
... a "tripping" foul on the defender ...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
There's a difference between tripping and being tripped.
|
Reminds me of this oldie but goodie:
10.6.1E (NFHS 2004-05): B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts' B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.
10.6.1E, hasn't been in the NFHS casebook since 2004-05. Before that it was in the casebook for nine years, and then suddenly the NFHS dropped it from the casebook, without any comment, and without any rule change, and without any replacement casebook interpretation. In sixteen years, there has been no new NFHS ruling to the contrary.
Why did it disappear? Because the NFHS wanted to free up some room in the casebook? Or because it was inadvertently dropped from the casebook (like the multiple substitute lineup rule was inadvertently dropped from the rulebook several years ago, or as one clause of the goaltending definition was inadvertently deleted from the rulebook several years ago)? Is 10.6.1E still relevant? How is a new official supposed to know about this interpretation? How is an experienced official who used this interpretation for the nine years that it was in the casebook supposed to know that the interpretation has been deleted, or may have even been changed to the contrary, if indeed it actually has changed to the contrary?