Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jimgolf
I understand what each of you are saying. However, it is clear that the FED ruling is confusing at best.
A player setting a screen is most defintely involved in the play. No possible interpretation could conclude that a person setting a screen is not in the play. A player receiving a pass is also in the play. If you think otherwise, then you will interpret the ruling differently.
Think of A1 setting a blind screen without time and distance where B1 runs into him. If we go by this interpretation, we must call an intentional foul on B1, when in reality this is a personal foul on A1.
By extension, if proper time and distance have been given, then this would be a personal foul on B1, not an intentional foul.
However, if A2 is just standing around, and B1 runs into him, this has to be an intentional foul, according to this ruling.
At least that's how I read it.
|
I agree that the ruling is badly worded. I disagree with your extrapolations, though. I can't see how you'd ever get an intentional foul on B1 if A1 didn't give time and distance, even by the bad wording of hte rule.
I also agree with what Dan said about the intent of the rule, but I still think the Fed needs to address the wording, even though it's only a one year thing. I just don't understand why they can't shop their drafts around so that wording problems like this get fixed before the final printing. So frustrating!