Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
You may choose to ignore the case play that I cited, which has the force of a rule. As I've said, our state interpreter made clear that the operative test of KCI is an "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball," and his examples were as I've described.
|
I'm not ignoring it. The casebook example you cite is a K player obstructing R's path to the ball. That's the context in which the "unmolested opportunity" statement is made. Our state rules interpreter, and all the chapter rules interpreters I know, say this is not KCI. I thought this was pretty settled case law in HS. Also read the statement in the casebook that says if the casebook conflicts with the rule book, the rule book trumps.