Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonlj
I'm going to agree with JRut on this play. If R15 did not want to touch the ball he should not have been anywhere near it. R22 was exonerated because he was blocked into the ball but R15 is not so lucky. It's no different than a ball taking an unexpected bounce or the ball hitting an R player because he wasn't looking.
|
I don't think we're going to see this exact play in the Case Book for reference any time soon, so it's likely going to be a matter of judgment based on a unique situation.
R15 may well have gotten safely away from the loose ball until
K50 knocked R22 into it, possibly redirecting and propelling the ball at R15, we don't know. It might make a difference, in judgment, whether R15 was really close to the contact between K50 and R22, or far enough away that he coulda/shoulda avoided being contacted by the ball.
6-2-4 seems pretty clear that the "idea" is to exempt R from being touched by the loose ball when K is responsible for what happens. That seems like a judgment call by the covering official who will have the opportunity to respond to exactly what he sees.