Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ref in PA
Bob,
Regardless of the way the interp and rule is written, do you really think the NFHS meant it that way? I would like to see the interp changed or the rule more plainly written. I guess I can see the logical argument supporting the interps, but it involves some assuming. While JR assumes the situations in parens and what they mean are the only cases where where one may leave their frontcourt, catch the ball and land in backcourt without violating, another may think the cases in parens are just a few examples of when a team is not in control (which to me seems to be more in spirit with the rule).
Keith
|
That's exactly the long, long, long discussion we had before the interps came out -- were the parentheticals a complete list or merely examples?
Given the interp, I think it's clear, even if it's not what I would have suggested.