Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
While I agree, Randy's first post has some flaws, I think we can be a little generous here and interpret "common technical foul" to mean "run-of-the-mill technical foul", as opposed to a flagrant.
|
Yup, and that's exactly what I did. I did interpret Randy saying it was a common technical foul to mean that it was a "run-of-the-mill technical foul". And that means that Randy's interpretation was completely wrong
by rule, as I was pointing out.
It's not a matter of being generous. It's a matter of pointing out a very obvious rules mistake by Randy . It can't be a freaking "run-of-the-mill technical foul"
by rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE to be exact. As per that rule, all dead-ball contact-fouls have to be
intentional or
flagrant in nature,
NOT a "run-of-the mill technical foul".
Hell, Scrappy, you know that.
I really don't care what Randy was
trying to say. I do care that what he
did say was completely wrong.