View Single Post
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 13, 2005, 08:00am
Nevadaref Nevadaref is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,004
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref

This is a big change. I truly wonder if the committee really did change the wording of the definiton because without doing that, they can say whatever they want on the website, but the rule hasn't changed.
The website says that the rule hasn't been changed. It's just been clarified. Iow, the language may have been changed slightly but the purpose and intent of the rule remains the same.

The situations that they mention must be called this year are exactly the same as the the ones they mentioned in the 2000-01 POE's. The only real difference is they've changed their minds about calling an intentional foul if the coach says "foul "em". I don't blame them for backing down on that one, because that was a dumb interpretation anyway- and one that most everybody ignored if the defender went for the ball.
And my point is that the slight change in the wording really does make a BIG change in the rule, no matter what they say. (If, in fact, the committee has changed the wording.) They can say whatever they want about a clarification, as we learned from the LGP fiasco, but a change is still a change.

Under the old wording if you fouled to stop the clock, it was an intentional foul, but if we go with the wording in the "clarification" it would be allowed (only resulting in a common foul) as long as a legitimate attempt to play the ball was made. That is a fundamental change in the rules.

So while the examples that they did provide are the same as before and would still result in intentional fouls, they don't give the example that I just did in the above paragraph. That play is going to have to be called differently, if they changed the wording of the rule.

Reply With Quote