Thread: Punt question
View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:37am
JRutledge JRutledge is offline
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
Your above assessment, and interpretation, is a valid opinion that would, and should, apply to the vast majority of related circumstances, however it is an opinion and an assessment of what is actually seen applied to your interpretation of NF 6-2-4.

6-2-4, seems to clearly suggest that the "cause" of an action, by a player of one team, should not cause the opponent to suffer a consequence they bear no responsibility for, which is why the judgment of the covering official is dependent on his specific observations.
Seems to? I think that is your interpretation based on you are just about the only person making the leap that touching the ball based on this definition leads to other touching to be apart of that same definition. Sorry, but that is a big leap when in other cases there are interpretations that suggest otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
As this very unique, hypothetical situation is, "not specifically covered in the rules", NF 6-1-6 provides for "authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship on any situation not specifically covered in the rules.", and as always, "The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."
Well that is great, but the Referee is not making these decisions in the first place. And if I rule this as a Back Judge my Referee better not have much idea what actually happened or see the play at all. So not sure what this reference has to do with this issue?

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote