Mon Jul 05, 2004, 07:54pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
|
|
|
Re: Question for Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jimgolf
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
For example, I point out that the author states one reason for calling a technical foul is:
2. Using profanity or language that is abusive, vulgar or obscene.
However, not only is this a technical foul, but according to NFHS rules it is also flagrant. The words chosen by the list writer even match those in the definition.
4-19-4
A flagrant foul may be ... If technical, it involves ... extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct.
That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the author is not advocating calling this flagrant. For many others, I'm sure that it would be.
|
Doesn't the sentence structure of 4-19-4 indicate that it has to be both "extreme or persistant", and "vulgar or abusive" to warrant a flagrant technical? Otherwise it would read "extreme, persistent, vulgar, or abusive".
|
You are giving the Rules Committee way too much credit if you think that they have carefully weighed the grammar and vocabulary they use, and considered what the possible different meanings could be. If they'd only do it the way you are thinking, we'd have far fewer problems interpreting and explaining the rules.
|
Threaded Mode
