|
|
|||
Quote:
There are quite a few rules in the book which one could read in a similar fashion and which would also generate absurb results. Examples: 1. Apply 7-2-2 during a throw-in to the thrower right after the official hands him the ball. 2. Apply either 9-2-1 or 9-2-2 during a throw-in following a goal or awarded goal. 9-2-3 and 9-2-9 both specify "except as in 7-5-7," but the first two do not. 3. Apply the penalty specified in 10-4-5 even when the offender participates in the fight because the leaving of the bench was first. Quote:
. . A technical foul is: a. A foul by a nonplayer. b. A noncontact foul by a player. c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter. d. A direct technical, charged to the head coach because of his/her actions or for permitting a player to participate after having been disqualified. (10-5) e. An indirect technical, charged to the head coach as a result of a bench technical foul being assessed to team bench personnel, or a player technical foul being assessed to a team member for dunking or grasping the ring during pre-game warm-up or at intermission. (10-3-4, 10-4-1 through 4, 10-5-2) That's complete garbarge. If what you wrote were true, you would have two fouls on any punch. One for the unsporting behavior of trying to strike the opponent (I guess for the malicious intent.) and a second one for succeeding and actually making physical contact. Need I remind you what the NFHS has written regarding a player swinging an elbow and making contact or not? Here's one of our previous discussions: swinging an elbow Quote:
Last edited by Nevadaref; Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:03am. |
|
|||
I think that the point is that the contact is not the most important part of the punch. A punch that whiffs and a punch that breaks a jaw carry the same ultimate penalty. The offender is gone and somebody is gonna shoot 2. If you want to insist that the broken jawed guy's sub shoot the ft's and take the ball out at the spot rather than the division line and quote a case play to justify it, fine, but how can you possibly read 10-3-8 and say that to call the foul a technical is 100% wrong?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
Bookmarks |
|
|