View Single Post
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 11, 2011, 11:14am
MikeStrybel MikeStrybel is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northwest suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 645
I keep him at the dish because 8-3-2 states...MALICIOUS CONTACT SUPERSEDES OBSTRUCTION. This same ruling is repeated in 8-4-2-e(1)

As Carl stated, it is as if Obs never happened. Nowehere does the Fed rule say that the Malicious contact must involve the player who was obstructed. Until the rule changes, it seems pretty easy to enforce.

Enjoy your season!
Reply With Quote