Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
As cited earlier, a foul which doesn't hinder the opponent (create an advantage) is not a foul.
|
Agree. 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
By local standards.
|
This is not a local standard:
THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES
The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.
Just explain why the word "foul" is not in here. That's all I ask.
I do not have any proof that violations can be interpreted under the guidelines of advantage/disadvantage. None. Period.
Why won't some admit the same thing in reverse, that they have no proof that the NFHS states that some violations (with many casebook exceptions) may not be interpreted under the guidelines of advantage/disadvantage.
The "Intent" statement is a very open ended statement. That's my point.
Still waiting for some ten second, and three second, interpretations.