Straddling the division line

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your question appeared to be about what I answered. The discussion was wandering and was no longer just about the OP but about principles and what if's.


Incorrect. "last to touch, first to touch" is exactly relevant. When a B player is the last to touch that ball BEFORE the ball gains BC status, A can no longer be the last to touch. Thus, it can't be a violation. That is what the rule says and has said for decades.

But it is a violation. Or are you just stating that you disagree with the interpretation?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

But it is a violation. Or are you just stating that you disagree with the interpretation?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

(Nearly) Everyone disagrees with the interpretation.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(Nearly) Everyone disagrees with the interpretation.

Good point

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

But it is a violation. Or are you just stating that you disagree with the interpretation?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

The interpretation is incorrect. It fundamentally does not match the rule and the rule has been the same for a very long time. Not sure how anyone could come up with that interpretation if they actually read the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(Nearly) Everyone disagrees with the interpretation.

I have been told for years on this site that I have to adhere to every interpretation by the NF and now we have the same people who were holier-than-thou about those topics trying to tell others what they disagree with. But when it was another issue, "But that is the rule or interpretation." Sorry as I find that rather ironic and mostly funny.

It is an interpretation. I get it that it is not popular, but those are the interpretations, right? What do we do when someone calls us to the carpet on the interpretation and we called something different?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have been told for years on this site that I have to adhere to every interpretation by the NF and now we have the same people who were holier-than-thou about those topics trying to tell others what they disagree with. But when it was another issue, "But that is the rule or interpretation." Sorry as I find that rather ironic and mostly funny.

It is an interpretation. I get it that it is not popular, but those are the interpretations, right? What do we do when someone calls us to the carpet on the interpretation and we called something different?

Peace

You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone can understand.

It isn't that we're just disagreeing with an interpretation. The interpretation itself contradicts the rule. As such, we have two opposing rulings, both of which can't be correct. We're going with the one that has been there for 50+ years vs. one that came out of nowhere. The new interpretation can't be correct without a rule change.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone can understand.

It isn't that we're just disagreeing with an interpretation. The interpretation itself contradicts the rule. As such, we have two opposing rulings, both of which can't be correct. We're going with the one that has been there for 50+ years vs. one that came out of nowhere. The new interpretation can't be correct without a rule change.

Do not tell me what I do not get. I just have been listening to people like yourself tell everyone how we must follow the NF and their interpretations, and when it does not fit the perfect knowledge you have of the rules we just agree with what you say now? Pick a lane!!!!

It makes no difference to me. I think people worry about these things too much anyway. This is not likely to happen in most situations because players are afraid of even being close to the line in the first place even when they are allowed by rule to be there. I just find the position you take as funny. Now you do not agree with the ruling, but when you do, "We cannot waiver or make up our own rules." OK. LOL!!!

Just like the other BC situation the NF made clear they wanted to stick with, I am going to call it that way. Maybe the rule will change when they realize how stupid it sounds. The best way to change a rule is to call it the way they want. I got enough juice to do that and do not care if someone does not like it. Let them argue with the interpretations and get them changed.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do not tell me what I do not get. I just have been listening to people like yourself tell everyone how we must follow the NF and their interpretations, and when it does not fit the perfect knowledge you have of the rules we just agree with what you say now? Pick a lane!!!!

Peace

You still don't get it...no surprise.

It isn't what I think here. I AM still saying follow the NFHS . The NFHS is just saying things that are contradictory. One of them is inconsistent with the rules and principles in many ways so it makes it easy to see for anyone that doesn't just want to pick a fight which on should be the correct one to apply.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You still don't get it...no surprise.

It isn't what I think here. I AM still saying follow the NFHS . The NFHS is just saying things that are contradictory. One of them is inconsistent with the rules and principles in many ways so it makes it easy to see for anyone that doesn't just want to pick a fight which on should be the correct one to apply.

I have been pointing out the NF contradictions for years. And people like you tell us how we must not waiver from their positions. Now we have to adhere to your sensibilities when the contradiction is too much for you to handle.

Look, none of us are likely to ever work with each other. We do not work in the other's states. We have to answer to those we work for and the NF certainly is not one of those people I have to answer to in any state I work for. We do not work in the same associations. So honestly who cares? I just find it funny when the people that love to get on their high horse all these years now want to get mad another contradiction or misinformation from the NF. Call it the way you can explain. Then again, this is the NF official interpretation. We know how important those things are to you. I clearly get it, I am just having fun watching.

Peace

[CJP]

I don't think there is a contradiction between the rules as they are written and the interpretation. Ball status is clearly defined. Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1 clearly states that the player A cannot touch the ball in the back court, after the front court deflection by B, before the ball goes back to the back court. It cannot be back in the back court until it takes a bounce.

Am I missing something?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CJP

I don't think there is a contradiction between the rules as they are written and the interpretation. Ball status is clearly defined. Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1 clearly states that the player A cannot touch the ball in the back court before the ball goes back to the back court. It cannot be back in the back court until it takes a bounce.

Am I missing something?

I am much more on your side of this, but I also see the other side where the language is confusing. Either way that is what the NF has said is illegal, so guess what I am going to call when it happens? That is what interpretations are for right?

Peace

[CJP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am much more on your side of this, but I also see the other side where the language is confusing. Either way that is what the NF has said is illegal, so guess what I am going to call when it happens? That is what interpretations are for right?

Peace

I agree about confusion. I had to think about it for a while but came to an understanding. Although confusing, it is not contradictory.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CJP

I agree about confusion. I had to think about it for a while but came to an understanding. Although confusing, it is not contradictory.

I agree. It really is not contradictory at all. It might be hard to understand as you said, but this player is in the BC and then touches a ball that never reached BC status.

Peace

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree. It really is not contradictory at all. It might be hard to understand as you said, but this player is in the BC and then touches a ball that never reached BC status.

Peace

This is what made that click for me. I kept trying to figure out how anybody could argue FOR this interpretation but I guess if it hasn't touched the BC, it doesn't have BC status.

In my mind, I guess B1 touching the ball should give A1 the ability to go get it free of consequence.

I think they made this unnecessarily complicated but whatever. That's why they make the big bucks, and I'm driving 30 miles to a 2A school tonight to make $95.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by CJP

I don't think there is a contradiction between the rules as they are written and the interpretation. Ball status is clearly defined. Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1 clearly states that the player A cannot touch the ball in the back court, after the front court deflection by B, before the ball goes back to the back court. It cannot be back in the back court until it takes a bounce.

Am I missing something?

B is on the other team.
The interp says that the catch of the ball by A1 in his BC is both the last touch in the FC and the first touch in the BC. Problem is there's only one touch. Last and first means there are two touches. A last and then a first.....That's what 9-9-1 says. We dont have word simultaneous.
2. Also, grammatically, the wording of the rule about the last touch refers to the player's location. The last touch under 9-9-1 has to be by a player in FC.