Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Are you referring to A.R. 75? A.R. 75 uses batting the ball over an opponent as the case play but the ruling is:
(1) Violation, because the ball is touched twice during a dribble, before the ball touches the playing court.
Which is the exact same verbiage used in the NFHS case book. (I'm sure Jurassic said the same thing earlier in this thread).
The reason it is a violation is stated clearly.
|
I'm only pushing this to expose the hipocracy of those who demand exact language when it supports thier interpretation but claim inferential language is sufficient when it is needed to back up their interpretation
The context being referred to is one where the ball is batted up (and, in this case, over an oppenents head). You can't simply ignore the context an apply the conclusion generally. If it was meant to apply generally, they wouldn't have created a context with an exception type of play. I'm sure you can find several rulings in the case book that, when taken out of context, lead to some interesting results.
As for the rule, why the clause "into the air" if what you suggest is true. If it were meant to be generally true, it would be worded something like: During a dribble, the ball may only touch or be touched by the hand(s) once between bounces. But, it doesn't say that.