Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams
1- If he gets hit and goes down I don't know why. He could be embelishing, he could have been off balance trying to lean away to avoid/protect, he might just ahve bailed out because he doesn't like getting in the chest because he's a big pu$$. I can't make that judgement. A kid who barely gets hit and goes down is not "faking" being fouled/hit if only because you have no way of knowing what the thought process or motivation for going down that hard would be.
|
Come on, that is a really weak cop out. It isn't that hard to tell. I don't have to know what he was thinking when you can see what they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams
2 - The wording "faking being fouled" is inherently poor. To my mind the fake has to be for faking contact.
|
Except that isn't what the rule says at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams
If the fake isn't for faking contact, but rather faking a foul . . . how can anyone fake a foul. Its only a foul if we judge contact to be a foul. He can't fake blow your whistle for u? He can fake contact or fake excessive contact but until you blow your whistle its not a foul, and if you call it a foul he's not faking. If its only a foul if you call it then he can't fake what you are going to call. So by definition you could never actually call this if you interpretted foul literrally which is why I tend to infer that it must mean faking contact.
|
What is all that silly stuff for. The rule isn't unclear like you're trying to make it. I agree that it may not be one we should enforce to the letter or even close but you're just making yourself look silly with all of those gymnastics you're having to go through to avoid taking the rule for what it is.