Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
...that would be the height of ridiculousness.
|
That's not very high, anyway. I remember once you called Chuck ridiculous, and he wasn't very high...
I've always wonder what the Fed actually means by the wording, "actionless contest". I would think shooting and missing FT's would be considered "action". I'm not convinced a repeated violation would be considered "actionless". I wish they would put in a couple of case plays to let us know what they consider an "actionless contest" before we start applying that part of the rule book.