Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jimgolf
?????
The wording means fouling a player that is not setting a screen and not attempting to receive the in-bounds pass and not etc. must be deemed intentional.
Conversely fouling a player that is setting a screen or attempting to receive the in-bounds pass or etc. may or may not be an intentional foul, but is not an automatic intentional foul.
Associative property. Oh wait, that's multiplication.
(also applies to logical not).
|
I deleted my post above because it says exactly what BktBallRef had already told you. It was just a duplicate.
That wording isn't the least bit hazy imo. It's from POE #4 in this year's rule book, and it's about as definitive as the FED could make it.
"In throw-in situations, fouling a player that is not involved in the play in any way(setting a screen, attempting to receive the in-bounds pass, etc.) must be deemed intentional".
A player setting a screen is just an example that they gave of a player that is not involved in the play. By "not involved", the FED simply means that the player does
not have the ball. The NFHS rulesmakers say that it
is intentional; you're saying that it
may be intentional. Correct?
If you don't agree with the FED, which I'm sure is the case, may I suggest that you run it by your local rules interpreter to get his opinion.