Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
|
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]
|
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.
[/B][/QUOTE]Gee, I believe that I'll stick with my answer above. You quoted one sentence out of a rules section that has many completely different scenarios in it, and you're trying to relate that scenario to a different scenario laid out in a different sentence. You're also completely ignoring a case book play that relates to one specific scenario in that section- and that specific scenario just happens to be the one under discussion- i.e. a dribbler trying to go between 2 legal defenders who are less than 3 feet apart. A dribbler trying to get past ONE defender doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in that casebook play, that I can see. It's a waste of time writing it out again. Don't forget to write the FED and tell them that their casebook play is wrong, and you are right. Please let us know their answer when you get their reply back.
Silly me. I always thought that the rules interpretations in the casebook were put out to further explain different articles of the rulebook. I guess that that concept doesn't really apply to casebook play 10.6.2SitC, and we're supposed to ignore it. As I said, do whatever you want to,believe whatever you want to, and call whatever you want to.
[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 26th, 2004 at 01:20 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]
It must be great to ignore the fact that 10-6-2 in the rule book is what your casebook play is taken from and to sum up if contact occurs while A1 is ATTEMPTING to get between the defenders then A1 has the greater responsibilty
for the contact, which is what your casebook play says. 10-6-2 continues with if A1 gets head and shoulders past the 2 defenders or 1 defender and the boundary, WITHOUT causing contact any subsequent contact puts the greater responsibility on the defender(s).
Is that simple enough for you to understand? If the contact is before the head and shoulders get past it is a charge, if it is after it is a block. Your casebook only deals with ATTEMPTING, it is not all inclusive of the rule from which it is based.
I'll call it the right way, which is the way it is written in the rulebook.