|
This rule and the accompanying interpretation have always puzzled me.
If "guiding the ball to the ground" does not violate the rule, then by definition of what DOES violate the rule, there is a catch and a voluntary release.
Therefore, the force is already removed.
In the specific case cited, the defense did lose an out on the tag, but in general, what's the point of the rule?
It can't be to prevent cheap force outs (like the IFR), since it was by definition caught (BR already out, so no force.)
__________________
Tom
|