|
The closest Case Book reference I can find is Situation 4, NFHS 6.2, where KI and RI are blocking dowfield as a kick is loose. K2 legally bats the ball into the preoccupided R1. The ruling is the touching (being touched by R1) is ignored following the logic of the rule that K2 is responsible for the motion that propelled the ball into R1.
In the sample play, it suggests that K50, in effect used R22 (legally blocking him into the loose ball) as the means of providing the motion to propell the loose ball into R15. Since R22 is unquestionably relieved of the responsibility of redirecting the movement of the ball, as his contact with it is ignored, the responsibility remains with K50, also absolving R15 of that accidental contact.
It seems the clear intent of NFHS 6-2-5 is to absolve R of the responsibility of touching the loose ball when the touching is a direct resuly of action caused by K.
|