View Single Post
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2016, 08:55pm
JRutledge JRutledge is offline
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Because too many people were being obstinate about it....wanting to do it their own way and improperly using the incorrect excuse of advantage/disadvantage to not call it (consider me guilty too because I was not interested in being different, but that doesn't mean I agreed with it). They tried it with POE's for a while with little effect. Realizing that some people would continue to refuse to call it as defined and requested without it being spelled out for them in most simple terms, they spelled it out so that even the most stubborn could no longer say it wasn't a foul.
Well if that was the standard, they did not seem to tell anybody that was the standard. Again, 4-27 says very clearly what is not a foul and if the contact stated does not affect normal offensive or defensive movement, then the actual rules says that is not a foul. So again if it was clear as you say, then it would have been used to remind people that these actions were "automatic" fouls. But the problem is that was never the case in my career. Of course there were POEs about things that they wanted us to call, but not about this specific issue or stating specifics that make these actions a foul.

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