Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
What does a POE have to do with a current rule that was written 10 years later?
|
I'm saying that for, at least, the past twenty years, the NFHS has been trying to eliminate (with the exception of single, short-lived, hot stove touches) handchecking ("tagging").
Furthermore, the NFHS has taken the philosophy of advantage/disadvantage (the usual philosophy for almost all other types of fouls) and removed it from the handchecking equation, evolving to "automatic" handchecking fouls.
Also, a deep dive into the rulebook, Points of Emphasis, and interpretations tells us that this "automatic" handchecking foul philosophy wasn't anything brand new in 2012-13 or 2014-15, but can be traced back, at least, to 2001-2002.
Some older Forum members also believe that this may go further back, all the way back to their playing days way back in the 1960's, but that's, at best, only anecdotal evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Or are you arguing a point that no one is saying at this point?
|
At least one Forum member believes that handchecking is open to interpretation under the usual NFHS philosophy of advantage/disadvantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... nothing was influencing the RSBQ in any way.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... did not influence the movement of the player. So I would likely pass on that until it affected the player.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... would like some RSBQ to be influenced. Like to see a little more of the player be affected ... want something to influence the play.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... something has to be influenced to even get a call ...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... need to see some RSBQ be influenced.
|
Once again, and as usual, when in Rome ...