Fun With The Division Line ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There's a difference between guessing and educated guessing.

We use the language available to us in the rulebook, casebook, Points of Emphasis, and annual interpretations to make educated guesses, stating relevant citations along the way, to hopefully come up with correct interpretations regarding "odd" situations not specifically covered by the available language.

That's the science component; research, logic, and rational thought leading to a hypothesis. That's right in my wheelhouse.

The art component is to use sometimes limited available language to "fill in the blanks". That's not usually in my wheelhouse, and I will often look for guidance from others.

What you did here was not an educated guess, it was an opinion. Because this play is not covered so there are things in the rulebook that I am well aware of that are never considered because it does not fit a specific definition. YOu are stuck on a definition that may or may not apply to what I was saying. Because the ending of a dribble does not have anything to do with what would be ruled a BC violation if the action is a player touching the ball completely in the FC. I am not trying to even say I am right here, just pointing out that this is a hole in the rule and might not fit the intention the rule was created. So you can research this all you like, but unless you come up with a specific play or something that adds to the hole in the interpretation, we are just giving opinions at this point. And I have learned that I can have an opinion about rules and have organizations say how they want you to rule on the situation. That is why I said you need to ask the people you work for and see what they think. I will do the same and we can even share that information, but it also does not mean we will be spot on either way. It might mean that there are just different takes on this play. And the way the NF does things, it is really up to your state to give a ruling.

Peace