Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
We've given you a specific case play that directly addresses our position. Some may give A/D as a reason for not calling certain violations, but I don't think that's entirely correct.
|
The specific case play deals with a specific situation. I'm not 100% sure because I don't have my old rulebooks with me at work, but this case play has not always been in the casebook. I believe that it was a response to this play not being called a violation because many officials back then, if I can recall this properly, called it with advantage/disadvantage in mind, something that the NFHS must have decided was not they way that they wanted this specific play called.
You can expand this interpretation to all violations if you want to, and I can pretty much agree with you, but I just can't get past the way the "Intent" statement is written. It's just a mental block for me. I'm a chemist, actually an analytical chemist, and I often require more proof than most people require.
I can agree with you about "not entirely correct". I believe that there are very, very few violations, if any at all, that should be interpreted according to advantage/disadvantage.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.