Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Yup, you asked a question about a rule. And you also chose not to accept the answer that you were given. That answer was the pertinent NFHS rule.
The rule sureasheck does say that different shooters may attempt technical foul free throws. You chose to interpret the rule completely different than the way that it's been explicitly written, and also as well as how it's also been administered since the rule was put in. You chose not to believe anyone that pointed it out to you. If you don't want to believe responses to your posts, well, personally I really could care less. That's your perogative. But it's only common sense that you would also check with your local rules interpreter to see who was correct. Had you done so, you would have found out that you were wrong. Deal with it.
|
Read the thread again. You cited a rule without explanation. I asked for an explanation, which you did not offer. When I explained the basis for my request - namely that the rule does not say what you seem to think, and the casebook play seems to undercut your interpretation - you attacked me.
I reproduced the rule in the thread above: show me where it
explicitly says that different shooters may attempt the FT's on a T. It doesn't: it might
imply it, which leaves open that interpretation.
Now you're trying to bolster your view with bluster and insult. You might be right, but you're not proving it. I can't be wrong, because I'm asking a question (and questions are neither true nor false). And it's not me against the world until I disagree with the world.
A little more light and less heat would clear this issue up, I'm sure. Perhaps you're not the person to supply what's required.