Thoughts on Block/Charge play and sequence that follows

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it citation or a reference, and make it true.

Just like saying over and over again that the new NFHS backcourt exception made it the same as the NCAA backcourt exception. How did that work out for you?

Here is the thing Billy, I said from the beginning what I felt was an opinion based on what it looked like. I also said that the NF needed to clarify that position to make it clear. I never felt that I was totally right or that there was no other explanation for their ruling. But let us be honest, the NF created an exception to something that was not an exception ot the examples they gave. The two plays I showed in the actual NF PowerPoint and in the S&I Book are not a "first touch, last touch" situation. They are a defender hits the ball in the backcourt and then an offensive player touches the ball in the backcourt (in the air apparently). That is why this was a debate in the first place. And it was such a debate that at a meeting I went to there were people thinking that the NCAA Rule was the only logical conclusion and others saying it was not the rule. It was poorly written.

I was also critical of the way the rule was changed without some situations that involved the rule they wrote the exceptions for. Obviously, there was someone on the committee like yourself that was worried about a situation that never happens as you do here and that is why they had to create a silly video that I have yet to see on video anywhere in a real game. At least I had some evidence for my position on the matter. You in this situation are going on and on about something that really no one but you (here) at least seems to be questioning.

Even if we say there is such a thing as an Intentional Flagrant Foul, a flagrant foul and an intentional foul have the same exact penalty as it relates to how we put the ball back in play and how many FTs we shoot. We are just ejecting a player on a flagrant foul in high school and doing everything else the same as a regular intentional foul. So I guess if it means that much to you, then go on and on as if no one is here. But there are people here and this is kind of why you get the response by multiple people you do when you literally have had like 4 different posts without much quoting of others with rather long posts. I am not critical of the long posts, but the fact you keep posting pictures, making jokes all over something that no one is even confused by or taking your position.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You are probably right, but prove it. Even it's the old you can't prove a negative trick. Use your intellect. Use your powers of rational reasoning, and persuasion. Get your head in the rulebook. Find some relevant language.

You go on believing what you want to and the rest of us will do what we understand the rule to be. I do not have to work with you and do not have to prove anything. I literally have had this conversation with others and usually, they are like, "Oh, that makes sense." You are a different animal for some reason. I am good with my position and do not need to contact anyone to even ask them such a silly distinction as I did when we had the debate about the backcourt rule.

Peace