Tip Me Over And Pour Me Out ...

[bob jenkins]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but rule 9-1-3-d (edited to correct the citation) says "....contacting the court...."

I think you are mis-reading the case play. The "stepping on or breaking (with a foot)" language is correct-- it applies to those parts of the case where that action happened. Since that action didn't happen in part (c), the language doesn't apply. You shouldn't read it as being the reason part (c) is illegal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but rule 9-1-3-c says "....contacting the court...." I think you are mis-reading the case play. The "stepping on or breaking (with a foot)" language is correct-- it applies to those parts of the case where that action happened. Since that action didn't happen in part (c), the language doesn't apply. You shouldn't read it as being the reason part (c) is illegal.

Thank you bob jenkins for replying to my odd, poorly written question.

Agree that the reason for (c) being illegal isn't listed in the language of the caseplay, but only in the language of the rulebook.

Even I'm not sure what I'm asking. How about this ...

Did the NFHS ever find it necessary to clarify this as being illegal because the feet never violate?

Or was this all a part of a bad dream?

Annual interpretations, casebook plays, and rulebooks (including actual rulebooks and casebooks made from dead trees) have all been searched with no success, so I've tried to do my due diligence.

My rulebook/casebook library only goes back to 1996-97.

Best I could do was to confirm that the play first appeared in the casebook in 2009-10.

[BillyMac]

If the rules and caseplays had stayed the same over the past forty years I'd probably be considered what'cha call a rules expert.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Did the NFHS ever find it necessary to clarify this as being illegal because the feet never violate?

No idea whether the NFHS felt it necessary; I don't think it is.

Case play part (a) (and maybe part (b) depending on how the rule is read), are relevant to rule 9-1-3g. This is listed in the case play.

Case play part (c) (and maybe part (b) ) are relevant to rule 9-1-3d. This could have been listed as a cite in the case play, but most of us can make the leap to find it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No idea whether the NFHS felt it necessary ...

Thanks for responding bob jenkins.

I'm now leaning (no pun intended) that the NFHS did not have to clarify, but rather, it was probably only a local issue with my local interpreter responding to a question from a member with tunnel vision (like me sometimes) as to why it was a violation if the feet never broke the plane. Like it happened yesterday, I can still picture my interpreter demonstrating the play with arms twirling like a windmill followed by push-ups.

This morning, in his You Tube presentation, Greg Austin showed a very funny video of a girl in the first lane space losing her balance and twirling her arms like to windmill, for what seemed like a long time, hopelessly trying maintain her balance to stay upright and not violate by falling into the lane, which she eventually did. She gave it her best effort. The video should have been shown with the theme song from The Benny Hill Show (Yakety Sax) playing in the background.

Sorry I bothered everybody.

[DrPete]

I don't know how to embed a video, but is this what you're talking about:
https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/25511236

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by DrPete

https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/25511236

Thanks DrPete. This is the Greg Austin You Tube presentation video that sparked my deep dive into the casebook play (though video and casebook play not exactly the same).