Quote:
Originally posted by RookieDude
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
|
Originally posted by RookieDude
|
Possibly...but, consider this...
Last year if a jumper "caught" the ball on a jump ball to begin the game, that jumper "gained" possesion at the same time he/she violated. Therefore, since there were no specific rules to interpret this, the team that caught the ball and violated did not get the ball for a throw-in and did not get the arrow. (Because they had first "possesion")
The NF decided, this year, to put a rule in covering this very scenario. In essence, the rule's intent was that a team cannot gain possesion and violate at the same time...just penalize for the violation.
|
I agree completely with Tony that the above statement is not true.
The play was covered last year under R6-3-1,and was also interpreted completely under Casebook play 6.3.1SitC(d).That's seems like having pretty specific rules to me!The call has been the same for years.The Fed also did NOT put in a new rule this year.they simply changed the old rule. [/B]
|
...Huh?...Did you not see I quoted THIS YEAR'S case book...I think that is the rules we are playing with THIS YEAR!
[/B][/QUOTE]Your specific statement above says that there was no specific rule last year interpreting a jumper catching a jump ball.That statement is WRONG!!Last year's specific rule and interpretation covering this play were quoted to you above.
You also stated above that the FED decided to put in a rule this year to cover that play.That statement is WRONG,also!They changed the existing rule(already quoted) from the year before.
Read what you wrote originally.
We're not telling you that you're wrong about this year's case book play.We are telling you that this specific play WAS covered by rule last year.