View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:18am
VaTerp VaTerp is offline
Official Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth- For Now
Posts: 872
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
That's fine. We use "should" here, as does the POE.
I wish we were doing the same. I have heard, though not confirmed, that 4 of the 5 ejections for flagrant elbow contact in my association this year have been overturned from the standpoint of the player having to sit out the next game per our state's governing body rules.

Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Well, it is not semantics when the NF never changed the rule. They certainly gave an interpretation, but did so without changing the language of the rule. Nothing in the definition of Intentional Foul has changed or said that any elbow contact or certain elbow contact is an to be only an Intentional Foul. And if they do not put in the language after this year, we will be right back to where we were before. And any new official will not have any reference point.

And since this obviously came from the NCAA level, why not change the rule like the NCAA did? The NCAA supported their ruling under their rules.

Valid points.

I'm in agreement the NF should change the rule and said earlier they needed to further clarify the interpretation and guidance. NCAA and the NBA have much better language on elbow contact IMO.

But based on what we have been told here I'm telling a coach "by rule" if only because saying "by our interpretation of the POE and guidance...." takes too long.

I get you and Sniper's point though.
Reply With Quote