Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
How does that mesh with the philosophy espoused here?
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 inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.
BTW the NCAA says the same and even issued a bulletin a couple of years ago specifying this point.
|
I'm not sure our two plays are equal (I prefer apples and bowling balls), but I see what you're trying to get at.
My point is my supervisor considered how we handled our play correct. I didn't know that until after the fact. He has also said many times if we apply the rules, he has no problem backing us up. Which, obviously, is a slight contradiction because there were 6 players on the floor, and we discovered it, so we could have, by rule, issued the T. So, at least in this specific instance with this specific supervisor, "common sense" trumps "strict rules interpretation". Do all supervisors feel this way? Probably not. Can I use what I feel is common sense instead of strict rules interpretation all the time? Absolutely not. So where is that line drawn? I'm still trying to figure it out.