View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2007, 12:47pm
JRutledge JRutledge is online now
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
I think you're overthinking it, based solely on the OP's written description of the foul. You're missing the forest for the trees.

The point is, in a situation where the contact was not intentional by definition of the word "intentional," but still meets the definition of an intentional foul due to excessive contact is there a better way this type of foul can be reported in order to clear up confusion? I think so, and I lean towards Jurassic's suggestion.
Actually I think you are missing my point. I am saying it is questionable that this is an intentional foul based on the definition. A signal is not going to change that at all. There is a signal in the CCA Mechanics (NCAA level) for excessive contact and that will not change whether people agree that this particular play or contact should be deemed an intentional foul. Unless there is something very specific put into definition, there will be people that will argue that this would not change whether this is an actual intentional foul.

The current rulings from the NF suggest that the player is put to the floor. This apparently did not happen.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote