[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

First, that wasn't the context. The context of that particular phrase was WRT the POI rule. The purpose and intent of all the rules is to prevent unfair advantage; and holding the arrow or removing the ability to run the endline constitute an advantage for one team when none is intended.

You’ll have to speak for yourself, here. I was never talking about advantage/disadvantage in the context POI. Where he responds to me, you and I were discussing legal/illegal contact (see below).

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)? My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

10-6-2 would not exist if incidental meant what you say it does. In fact, every contact rule would be modified to include what you say incidental means--"applies only when advantage/disadvantage is involved."

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Incidental doesn't mean what I say it does, it means what 4-27 says it does. In particular, with regard to this discussion, I'm thinking of 4-27-3.

Now, 10-6-2:

This, along with every other article in 10-6 has to be read in light of 4-27-3. Failing to do so is going to lead you to call about three times as many fouls as you should

As for the POE of which you seem to think I'm in violation. Note it specifically talks about enforcing the rules "as written." You can't ignore 4-27-3 and hope to enforce 10-6-2 "as written."

As in our other, now infamous, thread exchange, I’m merely trying to give voice to the language in the books, so if you choose to respond, try to check whatever unwritten intent you may feel applies, and stick with the text and context of the language, as written. As you know by now, I try to adhere as closely as practicable to the language of the books, so if it isn’t within their text or context, it holds no persuasive value for me.

Personally, I don’t glean the clear, sweeping mandate that you do from Article 3. The primary definition of incidental contact, preceding any Articles, requires two things: 1) that the contact is permitted, AND 2) that it not be a foul. I think we both agree that the “permitted” part is what the subsequent Articles are trying to delineate, in addition to outlying passages such as 4-19-1’s subnote. I think Article 1 can be summarized as describing contact that is essentially unavoidable under the circumstances of competitive play. If we drop the clause set out by commas in Article 2, we are left with, “Contact should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.” If we do a little parsing, the drafters’ use of grammar indicates that they are, again, referring to the type of contact previously mentioned--what I summarize as essentially unavoidable contact under the circumstances of competitive play. Then, Article 3 begins with “Similarly,” indicating the same thing, a reference to the type of contact previously mentioned. So, contextually, Articles 2 and 3 are referring to contact that is BOTH essentially unavoidable under the circumstances of competitive play (the “permitted” part of the primary definition of IC), AND also not a foul. They use the word "and" to combine those two.

For the “not a foul” part, we have to look elsewhere in the book for what type of contact constitutes a foul, so, Rule 10. This is where I think you beg the question. You use the Definition of Incidental Contact, which clearly states that it only applies to contact that is NOT a foul, to help you decide what a foul is. In the field of Logic, that is referred to as a circular argument, and is invalid, of course. Fouls are established in Rule 10, not in the Definition of Incidental Contact. Notice that 6-11 of Rule 10 references certain Rule 4 Definitions for assistance in establishing what a foul is, but nowhere does it reference that of Incidental Contact, further indicating to me that the drafters do not want 4-27 qualifying what is and what is not a foul (the first indication being that 4-27 starts out by excluding from the definition of “incidental contact” anything that is elsewhere defined as a foul).

So, textually and contextually, if the books somewhere say particular contact is a foul, then it's a foul. 4-27 only qualifies Rule 10 if the contact was unavoidable under the circumstances AND occurred with opponents in equally favorable positions without hindrance to normal offensive or defensive movement. Slapping a dribbler as he passes in an attempt to dislodge the ball is not only poor defense, it is definitely not unavoidable, and therefore outside the scope of incidental contact AS EXPRESSED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULES. This is where I agree with coaches (the better ones, in my opinion) and others in the game who say a foul is a foul, and why I/we think it is far from meaningless.

You suggested my view was extreme, and asked whether I call games according to the letter of the books: of course I don't. That's just not where the game is right now, hence the efforts of NFHS to turn us back. I wish we all did, however, and I think that is what parents, coaches, and ADs are expressing via NFHS through POE #1. Not only do I find the game boring as we presently call it, but it is tedious to have to constantly be trying to determine advantage/disadvantage with respect to contact. As you pointed out, the disagreement among us in that judgment is so vast, we might as well admit it's arbitrary. It would be better and far more consistent to judge avoidable/unavoidable, and let the players adjust--what I believe the Federation is arguing for.

I already know your interpretation/philosophy, so no need to restate it. If you don’t have specific language from the books that you think counters the language and context I am presenting, let’s just leave it there, and see if someone else can provide something fresh. This gets at what I was trying to say regarding philosophy. It has nothing to do with whether I can learn from others in my local association, or elsewhere—of course I can. I was saying that I haven’t found a need for extra-textual philosophies in order to interpret the books. Those in my local association who are willing to stay within the four corners of the books I find great value in.