Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
|
Originally posted by rainmaker
|
1) Chuck got it right, it COULD be both, but it doesn't HAVE to be. The defender COULD prevent both the shot and the pass, but he doens't have to prevent both. If he prevents only one of the two, it's still a held ball.
|
1) Nope, I'm saying Chuck got it wrong, just for the record. The defender has to prevent both to have a held ball. If the player with the ball can shoot or pass, then the defender hasn't prevented everything.
|
1)How do you figure? OR has a meaning out there in the world. It means "only one is necessary". I know the rule book doesn't always follow the rules, but it sounds like you're saying the rule book meaning is the opposite of what the regular meaning is. So how do you arrive at that conclusion?
[/B]
|
Nope, I'm saying that I'm not the brightest official around. When the player with the ball went airborne, I'm usually not 100% sure whether his original intention was to shoot the ball or pass the ball. If he isn't prevented from doing both, how do I know for sure that the act that he ended up doing was the same act that he intended to do when he went airborne? That's why I try to hold the whistle on these plays.
Your turn now. Is that brilliant logic or a wussy cop-out?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Wussy cop-out. What difference does it make what he intended? We're not supposed to read minds. If he was trying to release the ball, and the defender got a hand on and prevented it, it's a held ball at that instant, regardless of what happened next. That is clearly the spirit of the rule.
And you haven't explained why you interpret "or" to mean "and" against all the rules of logic, language and common sense.
Sat Jan 22, 2005, 09:47am
Hybrid Mode
