Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
How is it open for interpretation? How about spirit and intent? Repeated touching has always referred to "hot stove" touching.
All of a sudden when it's convenient to an argument, are we going act like the NFHS does a great job of writing a rule in ink the same way they actually intended for it be adjudicated on the court?
|
Here's the intent from the NFHS:
Quote:
|
Rather than continuing to make illegal contact a point of emphasis, a new criteria for foul enforcement was created. The intent is to clean up perimeter play and restore freedom of movement to the game. The new rule clearly explains specific contact that should be called a foul. This criteria should provide for more understanding of illegal contact for coaches and players, and improved enforcement by officials.
|
Again, when we had the language put to us last year in NCAAW there weren't a lot of warm and fuzzies about spirit and intent. The intent was to let the kids move to get more scoring so the game was better to watch and to provide uniformity in terms of enforcement since some of us (collectively) have lousy judgment. Many rules have a "spirit" component to them but if NFHS is doing this for the same reason NCAAW did - and it appears that's the case - this rule is about cold-blooded enforcement.
__________________
"Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's only to serve as a bad example."
"If Opportunity knocks and he's not home, Opportunity waits..."
"Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?" "Not until 4."
"The NCAA created this mess, so let them live with it." (JRutledge)
|