Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Bill - without getting into the "Board 6" debate, where do you draw the line between these two plays? I fall into the category of saying both plays are a violation, by rule.
|
M, the NFHS rulesmakers have been very definitive on this specific play.
CASEBOOK PLAY 9.2.5 SITUATION:
Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team.
RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertant, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.
Iow BillyMac has stated above that
"members of Board #6 have been taught to use the intent and purpose of the rules and the principles of advantage and disadvantage" to make a call that is completely opposite to the way that the NFHS rulesmakers have very plainly
written what the intent and purpose of the rule is and exactly how the play should be called. Now....one of those parties
has to be wrong. And, when in doubt, I think that I'll choose the Case Book over the Board #6 Way.
Btw, for the life of me, I just can't imagine newer officials trying to apply these advantage/disadvantage concepts on violations when they're still trying to figure out whether something is or isn't a violation in the first place. Can you imagine the thought process for a newbie?- "Whoa, that looks like it might be a palm. Now....should I call it or not?"