Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Not really. If choose to not call a foul, you have determined that the play was LEGAL in the context of the entire set of rules....including the advantage/disadvantage/incidental elements. The action could have been illegal if it had an effect on the play (RSBQ, for example) but if it doesn't, then it is not illegal.
|
A) I get that. I guess my point was that in the context of the OP is that the term illegal by definition is contrary to the rules/regulations.
Since the average person is not going to clinics or reading the interps, but at the very best reading or hearing a rule from the book at the worst getting 2nd or 3rd hand myths. In the case of the OP the actions of the opposing team go against the rules as written in the section on fouling. However the determination of whether a foul is called has many more factors then are listed word for word in just one section of the rule book. So someone who has a limited or literal understanding of the rule is watching something they could quite literally argue as illegal.
B) I don't think I'm ever determing incidental contact was "legal" just passing on it. I think a better analogy might be to compare it to actual legal situations where someone is speeding but only by a couple of MPH's or a criminal does something but because of lack of evidence they don't get prosecuted. THis doesn't mean they didn't do something illegal it means that they weren't charged, fined or prosecuted. In regards to the OP this is more inline with the coaches complaint and issues then trying to explain how an action is legal this time but not legal that time.