|
ljudge, great question - I see why you're wondering if the Fed wants this type of situation to be an exception to the all but one. Let me add this:
When the Fed deleted the text ("... but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play,...") in 9.6 comment (part b), what they essentially did was eliminate a lot of the difference between part b and part c of the 9.6 comment. Given their original language they may have wanted to make an exception to the all but one principle in part b, but when they deleted that text, I'm not seeing where part b is now not that much different than part c.
Part b indicates that enforcement is from the basic spot. Even though this is how the Fed phrased it, I'm of the opinion that unless they specifically state that (part b) is to be an "exception" to the all but one principle, then I'm going to enforce it using the all but one. In your caseplay example, A would then be penalized from the spot of the foul, a foul by A behind the basic spot. And yes, it would potentially be a huge penalty. If this is truly how the Fed wants it enforced, then they are putting IP (even if the entering substitute doesn't materially affect the play) in the same boat with safety-related fouls like clipping or blocking below the waist that are clearly enforced using the all but one.
I plan to ask the Nebraska association about their take on this. I'm doing some games in Iowa this year and will be interested to see what MJT finds out from them.
__________________
kentref
|