Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
It sure is amusing how the very same people (not necessarily refering to you, Dan) will use the "call it as its written" when it agrees their side of the debate but will call it how they "think it should be" when that is in line with their point of view.
|
Like yourself? You sound like the proverbial pot to me.
There's no gray area with regards to this play. It is black and white. You don't agree with it, therefore, you have a deeper understanding.
Right.
|
To me it's black and white. I'm not claiming I have a deeper understanding becasue I don't agree. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency that exists if you don't consider the kick to occur before the arrow is switched.
We have a violation and it applies. The NFHS established an interpretation on a similar situation a couple of years ago. In that case, the kick is considered to effectively occur before the throwin ends when the throwin ends with a kick. This was done to prevent the defense from gaining an advantage by kicking the ball. The penalty left A in same situation they were in prior to the kick. To take the arrow away from A becasue B kicked the ball is a reward for B, not a penalty.
If you really look at the "end of throwin" rule that has been cited, the AP arrow is to be switch "after" the throwin ends. In that sense there is no "after" since a violation prevented us from getting there.
The rules are written as if the situations are uncomplicated by other issues. In the case of two situations occuring simultaneously, there are often case plays defining how the rules are to be combined. Where such a case does not exist reasoning and logic has to be applied. It is simply not logical or consistent with
all the rules and case plays to switch the arrow when B kicks the ball.
[Edited by Camron Rust on Oct 9th, 2005 at 11:12 PM]