Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
|
That may be your opinion, but the NFHS certainly doesn't seem to agree with you. How do you know that the contact in the case book play didn't also occur after the dribbler got his head and shoulders through? Not that it makes any difference in the final call anyway.
|
"Causes contact ATTEMPTING to dribble between them." That sure sounds like contact before getting a head and shoulder past either defender. Again apples and oranges.
|
Oh, is it a different call now if the dribbler does get his head and shoulders past 2 defenders who have LGP and are less than 3 feet apart before he causes the contact? My case book doesn't seem to say that is, but oh well......
What's your call in that case then? And don't forget to cite a rule that will support it. [/B]
|
Rule book 10 art 2...If the dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for SUBSEQUENT contact is on THE OPPONENT.
Got you with your own rule support, so now what?
[/B][/QUOTE]Gee, it seems to say "an opponent". Not between TWO opponents- but "AN" opponent. As in ONE opponent. Apples and oranges? NAH!!
Maybe I got a faulty casebook. Mine doesn't seem to have any written restrictions in the case book play that I cited. They musta left out the section that says "This case book play doesn't apply if the dribbler gets his head and shoulders by a defender". Maybe when I get an altered case book that says that, I might agree with you. Until then......
Waste of time arguing with you. Call it any way you want. [/B][/QUOTE]
Try reading the RULE that your case play is under,10 art.2
where it clearly says two defenders or a defender and a boundary.
You were wrong and I gave you rule support to prove it, in fact it was the same rule that you were incorrectly using for the original play in this thread.
The only thing you did get right was this being a waste of time.