Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but rule 9-1-3-c says "....contacting the court...." I think you are mis-reading the case play. The "stepping on or breaking (with a foot)" language is correct-- it applies to those parts of the case where that action happened. Since that action didn't happen in part (c), the language doesn't apply. You shouldn't read it as being the reason part (c) is illegal.
|
Thank you bob jenkins for replying to my odd, poorly written question.
Agree that the reason for (c) being illegal isn't listed in the language of the caseplay, but only in the language of the rulebook.
Even I'm not sure what I'm asking. How about this ...
Did the NFHS ever find it necessary to clarify this as being illegal because the feet never violate?
Or was this all a part of a bad dream?
Annual interpretations, casebook plays, and rulebooks (including actual rulebooks and casebooks made from dead trees) have all been searched with no success, so I've tried to do my due diligence.
My rulebook/casebook library only goes back to 1996-97.
Best I could do was to confirm that the play first appeared in the casebook in 2009-10.