Quote:
Originally posted by Ref in PA
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Ref in PA
We discussed this in our association and determined:
One foot oob = on court
|
Next time you discuss it, hopefully someone will point out that determination is completely wrong as per rule 7-1-1.
Would you have used the same definition if A1 had kept dribbling and then run into B1? Kinda contrary to case book play 4.23.3SitB(a), isn't it?
Methinks your rules interpreter needs someone to interpret the rules for him.
|
I cannot argue that by a strict interpretation of the rule that a violation should be called. Yet 4.23.3 Sitch B is still in the case book. It is the play where the defender has a foot touching oob. The ruling is not a violation on the defender for being oob but a blocking foul. If that is the case, it seems the FED is not using a strict interpretation in this case.
|
That still doesn't change the fact that the case book play sez that the defender
is OOB with one foot on the line, or that R7-1-1 is also saying that the defender
is OOB with one foot on the line.
Your interpreter is saying however that a player with one foot on a side or end line is in-bounds, and is trying to interpret another rule using that erroneous assumption.
Now, either the NFHS rule and case books are wrong
or your interpreter is wrong.
Thu Dec 01, 2005, 11:50am
Hybrid Mode
