
Tue Sep 28, 2010, 03:40pm
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroKen62
Part of the problem is that there is no specific caseplay either way. There is a specific caseplay for backward being a foul and sideways being a foul, but not forward. Conversely, there is no caseplay that says pulling forward is not a foul. IMHO there needs to be clarification one way or the other. I don't think the absence of a caseplay supports either case. I can't hang my hat (although i want to) on the fact that because falling forward is legal, pulling forward is legal as well. But Rich, you can't hang your hat on the notion that just because pulling forward is not in the casebook, it must be a foul because "direction doesn't matter," when clearly in the FED powerpoint interpretations they say it is. Because of the lack of specific wording in the rule or casebook, all we have to go on is the "official" interpretation of the guys in charge, and as you can see from this thread and the last, there is a wide variety of interps out there. JM2CW. 
|
I guess if we wanted to, we could use the actual words from the actual rule. Maybe that's just me.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”
West Houston Mike
|