|
|||
I'll add that I object to the NFHS definition of object!
Basketball is being invaded by the PC. BTW, if people are not considered objects, then why the need to state "any object other than a player" in 7-1-1. By wording it that way, people other than players must be considered objects. webster.com has: 1 a : something material that may be perceived by the senses b : something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) 2 : something mental or physical toward which thought, feeling, or action is directed [Edited by Nevadaref on Oct 29th, 2004 at 11:05 AM] |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Not anymore - a quick trip to the doctor cleared that up.
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
Quote:
What I don't like is that the NFHS put in a new, fairly major interpretation, and then didn't bother to point it out to us. It's not listed in the front of the book(s) or on their site anywhere either, as far as I know. If I hadn't have noticed it surfing the case book, I would have answered it the same as you did. Not the first time that the FED has done this either. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
But I don't get why we're forced to T the kid for this. If he's lost his balance & uses a person OOB to keep himself in doesn't he gain an advantage & fit the newly worded HS case play?
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
Quote:
But I don't get why we're forced to T the kid for this. If he's lost his balance & uses a person OOB to keep himself in doesn't he gain an advantage & fit the newly worded HS case play? [/B][/QUOTE]That's the problem with this case play. It says that it ISN'T a violation if you accidentally touch a person OOB. What it doesn't definitively say that it IS a violation if you DELIBERATELY touch an OOB person to gain an advantage. It doesn't really say what the penalty is in that case, and the only reference that I know of in the NFHS rule book is R10-3-3- "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason". |
|
|||
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]That's the problem with this case play. It says that it ISN'T a violation if you accidentally touch a person OOB. What it doesn't definitively say that it IS a violation if you DELIBERATELY touch an OOB person to gain an advantage. It doesn't really say what the penalty is in that case, and the only reference that I know of in the NFHS rule book is R10-3-3- "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason". [/B][/QUOTE] Wait. Quote:
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
||||
Quote:
Wait. Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]According to R10-3-3, the penalty for violating the OOB rule IS a "T" if you gain an unfair advantage by doing so. There's nothing in the re-written case play 7.1.1.SitA that says anything different, or states that the penalty is a violation in this particular case only. The only thing that I can get out of the re-written case play is that you now do consider the player OOB if he deliberately touches someone OOB to gain an advantage- which leads back to R10-3-3. Personally, I WANT it to be a violation and not a "T". I like the NCAA rule. PS-Dan- E-mail me when you get a chance. |
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]According to R10-3-3, the penalty for violating the OOB rule IS a "T" if you gain an unfair advantage by doing so. There's nothing in the re-written case play 7.1.1.SitA that says anything different, or states that the penalty is a violation in this particular case only. The only thing that I can get out of the re-written case play is that you now do consider the player OOB if he deliberately touches someone OOB to gain an advantage- which leads back to R10-3-3. Personally, I WANT it to be a violation and not a "T". I like the NCAA rule. PS-Dan- E-mail me when you get a chance. [/B][/QUOTE] I see what you're getting at.
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
Quote:
Z |
|
|||
to use that rule, you would have to leave bounds intentionally, i don't think they are considering, "touching someone oob, going oob intentionally",... but i'm like you guys, i would rather call a violation instead of a "t" for doing going oob intentionally....
And if i grab on to someone to keep from falling or losing balance, i consider that doing it intenionally to gain an advantage, then it would be a violation oob!
__________________
DETERMINATION ALL BUT ERASES THE THIN LINE BETWEEN THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE POSSIBLE! |
|
|||
Quote:
I suspect (and I have nothing to back this up) that some poor kid was dribbling aliong the sideline when s/he accidentally made contact with a coach who was standing in the coaching box. The official rightly called OOB, the coach of the offensive player got upset and the rule was changed. And, at least the FED put an asterisk next to the case play. They've made other changes in the past without even that notification. |
Bookmarks |
|
|