Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
You can do what you want, but you are alone in this interpretation here. And I have never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting.
You never explained how far we take a touch to subsequent touches (which there is no rules support for). So wouldn't this situation be based on judgment? Not sure where the actual rule would come into play even with the definition that is stated. I
I do not think this is as unclear as you stated. You just are looking for specifics for a hypothtical that the rule was not intended for IMO. And it appears no one else but you are having this issue. Peace
|
This was a "sample question" about something I don't know that ever has happened, anywhere and certainly never to me. Why then, would you be surprised, "never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting", it's likely it never happened anywhere to anyone.
Yes, I am looking for specifics, regarding the logic and intent of the written rule, we all can refer to, but agree doesn't extend to, relate to or explain, this situation.
Why should I care that, "no one else but you are having this issue"? I don't have an issue, I'm suggesting a consideration for a previously unasked/unanswered question. If you disagree with my suggestion, fine, I've got no argument with that, but if you're trying to persuade me, you need to provide a little more than, "because I said so".
I know it's not stated in the rule, I know the verbiage used only applies to that initial forced contact, but does it make sense that a secondary contact, which as described, sounds as entirely the responsibility of K as the initial forced contact, should be ignored? If so, why?
Does the fact that, it sounds, like the 2nd contact by R, was caused ENTIRELY by K, extend the logic of the rule that R is not, nor should be, held responsible for an action caused ENTIRELY by K, which is exactly the logic applied to relieving R of the responsibility of the initial contact.
If you don't think that logic extends, OK, but why. It seems to me it's reasonable that it should, but as I've stated I would have to see exactly what happened to be absolutely sure that R2 had absolutely nothing to do with him touching, or being touched by, the deflected ball.
If R2 was standing close to the collision by K1 and R1 which caused the ball to be deflected into R2, as opposed to being some distance away, the opportunity, or lack thereof, to avoid touching the ball would be a factor.
How far away? I don't know, it first needs to be established if that matters. Should it?
If you don't want to bother questioning the logic and purpose behind this rule, fine, don't bother with it and go with the language that exists.
This is not a "look up the answer" situation, because an answer doesn't exist, and there is no official right or wrong. It seems a lot more like an opportunity to discuss the intent and purpose of the rule and see where that discussion might lead.