Help with 7-1-1

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In the last line of the case play he mentioned: "Inadvertantly touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation."

Interesting; I suppose there's an inference that can be made here, and I would agree that gaining an advantage as Nevada suggests is likely outside the intent of the rule. Is that enough to call a violation in Nevada's play?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Interesting; I suppose there's an inference that can be made here, and I would agree that gaining an advantage as Nevada suggests is likely outside the intent of the rule. Is that enough to call a violation in Nevada's play?

Just call traveling?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just call traveling?

I was thinking of just going "thumbs up."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Interesting; I suppose there's an inference that can be made here, and I would agree that gaining an advantage as Nevada suggests is likely outside the intent of the rule. Is that enough to call a violation in Nevada's play?

I would think so; maybe the initial "touch" would've been inadvertant, but once the player used that contact to keep from falling and regain their balance, that makes the contact more than inadvertant and accidental.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I would think so; maybe the initial "touch" would've been inadvertant, but once the player used that contact to keep from falling and regain their balance, that makes the contact more than inadvertant and accidental.

I knew that I could trust a Central Illinois guy to get it.