|
How about this:
1. IF an official were to judge that the throw was a pass, then the correct call in this sitch would be BC violation.
2. IF endorsing the principle in (1) was ALL that Catawba intended when they claimed that the official in the OP was "correct," then they were right. That official did in fact rule the throw a pass, so was correct to call the violation.
3. OTOH, if Catawba intended to claim that in all such plays the throw must be judged a pass rather than a try, then they are usurping official judgment: some of us think that any thrown ball that strikes the rim (from above) counts as a try, others decline to second guess the calling official, and still others are reluctant to rule without seeing the play.
4. If Catawba is usurping official judgment when it claims that all such cases must be ruled passes, then parity of reasoning suggests that it would equally usurp official judgment to claim that all such cases must be ruled tries.
5. Hypothetically, any Yankees fan who might claim that he personally would rule these cases tries would NOT be committed to the claim in (4), since he would seem not to be saying that they must be called thus. Were such a (merely hypothetical) Yankees fan to hint, suggest, or argue that those who disagreed with him were mistaken, then I believe he would be committed to the claim in (4), and thus be inconsistent.
Hope this helps clarify matters.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
|