Quote:
Originally posted by Indy_Ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
...and Indy, I can't imagine how you can refuse to abide by the new fed rule in your HS games.
|
Dan,
I defended my position in my post...and I thought I was quite clear on why I believe in my interpretation. Again, if the Fed wanted to ALWAYS make a defensive player stay inbounds to keep legal guarding position, I believe they should have stated in section 23, article 3b:
The guard may move laterally or obliquely ON THE PLAYING COURT to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
If it was so important to add PLAYING COURT to article 2a and article 3a, then they should have added it to article 3b as well. Had they done this, then I believe we could interpret it the way some of you have. (I agree they have muddled the rule!) Their interpretation on their website is fine. However, there is NO rule to explicitly support it in its totality...as stated in a previous post.
|
We agree that the wording is bad. But the new case play clearly makes it plain that the intent is that the defender MUST stay in bounds to maintain LGP. I'm sure sometime in the next few weeks the HS coaches in your area will hear this loud and clear & adjust accordingly. Aint right that you take it upon yourself to call it your own way.
Tue Oct 21, 2003, 11:13am
Threaded Mode
