Thu Feb 10, 2005, 04:44pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Snaqwells
No, we're arguing wih the wording of the rule. Without the federalist papers here, we don't know what "the intent" is. Without that, we have to go with how the rule is worded. Cameron is right, it's worded by chronology; not cause and effect.
I'd have no problem explaining my call to my assignor (or a coach for that matter) or even the state director of officials. My guess is that on this play, they'd consider it a judgment call and would be more concerned that I actually saw it and knew why I didn't call it than upset that I didn't call it. 
|
I went back to fix a typo and my post got deleted, somehow.
Anyway, there are MANY areas of the rules that require us to interpret INTENT to judge the play correctly.
Parts are poorly written, somethings don't have case plays that REALLY need them.
The rule and the case play speaks of team A RETRIEVING a ball from the backcourt. I read that as getting a ball WITH BC status, which is the INTENT of the rule.
In this play A1 retrieves a ball with FC status with their feet in the back court, so once again B1 WAS NOT the last to touch the ball in the FC, A1 was and they did it with their feet in the back court, which is a violation.
|
The rule is not last to touch in the FC, it's last to touch before it goes into the backcourt (these are not the same).
The very instant A1 touched it, it was in the BC. For it to be a violatoin, A1 would have to be the last to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt (that was B1)...not simultaneous with it going backcourt.
Also, the intent is to allow A to play the ball if B has been involved in specified ways.
|
A1 WAS THE LAST TO TOUCH IT IN THE FC BEFORE IT WENT IN THE BACK COURT IN THIS STUPID PLAY.
|