[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Nevadaref


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.

Take it up with your local association. This current interpretation was basically how we were informed to call it or to use our judgment toward this rule. Now this just confirms that our area was consistent with what should be done. Interpretations change over time. Especially when one interpretation has little common sense involved. This is really not that big of a deal. Take it up with your local association and call it the way they want you to.

Peace